2023 (8) TMI 734

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xt P1 demand notice, on accepting the modified demand in Ext P3 appellate order. 2. The brief relevant facts for the determination of the writ petition are thus: (i) The petitioner is a partnership firm and a registered dealer under the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017( in short, 'KGST/CGST Acts) & Rules framed thereunder. (ii)The petitioner was checked by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer (Squad No.II, Thodupuzha). Even though the petitioner pointed out the availability of delivery challan, which was misplaced in the showroom, the proper officer CGST Act, confiscating 609.040 gms of gold ornaments. In Ext P1, the proper officer has demanded the maximum fine (value of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se order in Form GST MOV-05 and return the detained gold under Ext P1 demand, after accepting the modified demand in Ext P3 appellate order. 3. Heard; Sri. Tomson T. Emmanuel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Thushara James, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 4. Sri. Tomson T. Emmanuel reiterated the contentions in the writ petition. He placed reliance on Ext P6 judgment passed by this Court, to canvas the position that this Court has in an identical situation directed the respondents to return the bank guarantee to the petitioner, as the appellate order had attained finality. He also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 18531/2023, wherein this Court ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....owed, by modifying the demand in Ext P1 and the petitioner has been directed to pay tax of Rs. 90,444/-, penalty of Rs. 90,444/- and the reduced amount of fine at Rs. 5,42,664/-, thus totaling to an amount of Rs. 7,23,552/- 10. The petitioner asserts that although Ext P3 order was passed as early as on 10.01.2023 and the petitioner making Ext Pr request before the first respondent on 02.02.2023, the second respondent has not released the goods and has refused to receive the modified demand from the petitioner. 11. The contention of the second respondent that he has not received Ext P4 request is untenable because as per the postal delivery form submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it shows that Ext P4 order was deliver....