Ramesh Iron And Steel Company ... vs State Tax Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 200 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

    TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.29172 OF 2020(V)


PETITIONER/S:

                RAMESH IRON AND STEEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,
                VI/366, VI/366D, VI/366, ELOOR-KALAMASSERY ROAD,
                KALAMASSERY, COCHIN-683 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS
                AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.M.K.MURALI.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.A.KUMAR
                SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR
                SMTG.MINI(1748)
                SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD
                SHRI.JOB ABRAHAM

RESPONDENT/S:

                STATE TAX OFFICER,
                STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, SQUAD NO.4,
                ERNAKULAM AT EDAPALLY.

                R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
                C K GOVINDAN SPL GP TAXES

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD          ON
05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.29172 OF 2020(V)

                               2




                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5th day of January 2021

Petitioner challenges Exts.P5, P6 and P8. Ext.P8 is an

order issued by the respondent under Section 129(3) of the

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (For short, the Act).

Petitioner contends that his vehicle was detained under

Section 129(1) on the ground that there was a violation of Rule

138 of the GST Rules, since the E-Way bill issue had expired

few hours before the vehicle was detained.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. A Kumar,

further contends, that the appellate remedy available under

the statute is of no consequence in the instant case in view of

the peculiar facts arising. He seeks indulgence of this Court to

interfere in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction under

Article 226. The learned counsel refers to other writ petitions WP(C).No.29172 OF 2020(V)

pending consideration before this Court, wherein, similar

contentions are raised and which have been already heard by

this Court and decisions awaited. Coming to the facts of this

case, it was contended that, the respondent while passing

Ext.P8, had not taken into reckoning the objections filed by the

petitioner and instead, acted mechanically, without even any

reference in Annexure-III of Ext.P8, about the various

contentions raised by him. According to the learned counsel,

the order impugned is not a reasoned one and the same

renders the order without any basis and in excess of

jurisdiction.

3. I have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader

Sri.C.K Govindan also, who points out Section 107 of the Act as

the remedy available to the petitioner.

4. Ext.P8 is an order passed under Section 129 (3) of

the Act.. It is appealable under Section 107 of the Act. Even

though this Court can, in exceptional circumstances interfere WP(C).No.29172 OF 2020(V)

with detention orders, this is not a fit case where this Court

should interfere, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.

It has been held that Section 129 is a complete code in itself.

When the procedure required under the said provision has

been apparently followed, an interference under Article 226 is

not warranted. The legislative scheme discernible from

Section 129 of the Act contemplates compliance of natural

justice. Since after detention, Ext.P6 notice was issued and an

order was passed after giving an opportunity of being heard,

this Court is prima facie of the view that this is not a fit case to

invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such

circumstances, it is ideal to relegate the petitioner to the

appellate remedy available under Section 107 of the Act.

5. However, since the goods have been detained and

has been lying under detention, the same can be released if the

petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee, for the amount

demanded in Ext.P8 within one week from today. If the WP(C).No.29172 OF 2020(V)

petitioner furnishes a Bank Guarantee for the entire amount

demand in Ext.P8 within seven days from today, the goods and

vehicle detained under Ext.P8 order shall be released to the

petitioner forthwith. If the petitioner fails to file an appeal

within the period prescribed under the law, the Bank

Guarantee can be encashed. On the other hand, if the

petitioner files an appeal within the time prescribed, the Bank

Guarantee shall not be encashed till disposal of the appeal.

Needless to state, the appeal if any shall be filed in accordance

with law.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

JUDGE

JS WP(C).No.29172 OF 2020(V)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE INOVICE DATED 25.11.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE E-WAY BILL DATED 11/2020.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF FORM GST MOV-02 DATED 02.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF FORM GST MOV-04 DATED 02.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF FORM GST MOV-06 DATED 02.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF FORM GST MOV-07 DATED 02.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 08.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF FORM GST MOV-09 DATED 15.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 14.09.2018.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO.27520 OF 2020 DATED 09.12.2020.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL