Kerala High Court
Manoj N.S vs Assistant State Tax Officer on 22 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 2ND MAGHA, 1942
WP(C).No.1782 OF 2021(W)
PETITIONER/S:
MANOJ N.S,
PROPRIETOR, RECKON PAINTS, ID PLOT NO 236,
VADACKAL P.O.PUNNAPRA NORTH, ALAPPUZHA-688 003.
BY ADV. SRI.K.J.RENJITH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER,
STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT,
SQUAD NO 111,DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI-685 613.
2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT,
IDUKKI-685 613.
SMT. THUSHARA JAMES, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.1782 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 22nd day of January 2021
Heard both sides.
2. By this petition, the petitioner prays for a direction to
the 1st respondent to release vehicle KL-04-AM-4076.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that e-way bill was generated at 09.28 pm on 18.01.2021 for
supplying goods to Idukki district and the vehicle left the factory
on 19.01.2021. But there was break down which resulted in
stoppage of that trip. It is further submitted that the vehicle
could continue its journey only on 20.01.2021 and was checked
at Adimali, which resulted in issuing notices at Exts.P1, P2 and
P3, by which goods were detained. Learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that because of break down, the journey
could not be continued in pursuant to the e-way bill. It is argued
that within the statutory time limit, the journey started and
therefore, the impugned action is not justifiable.
4. As against this, the learned Government pleader drew
my attention to Rule 138 of the GST Rules and argued that for
transportation of goods, the necessary documents, including e-
way bill is must. According to the learned Government Pleader,
the petition itself demonstrates that the expired e-way bill was
not renewed and vehicle was detained on 20.01.2021. Learned
Government Pleader further argued that in the light of judgment
of this Court in W.P.(C). No.17379 of 2020 decided on
12.01.2021, when GST MOV-06 Form is issued, then the High
Court may not interfere in the notice proceedings.
5. I have considered the submissions so advanced. It is
not in dispute that at the time of interception, the vehicle was not
having valid e-way bill. Thus the said vehicle is detained and
proceedings under Section 129 of the GST Act, 2017 are going
on. The notice at Ext.P3, mentioning the discrepancies, is served
on the petitioner.
In this view of the matter, it is for the petitioner to appear
and making his stand before the authorities. No case for
interference is made out and the writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.BADAR
ajt JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER FOR PHYSICAL
VERIFICATION/INSPECTION OF THE CONVEYANCE,
GOODS AND DOCUMENTS DATED 20.1.2021 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION
129(3) OF THE CGST ACT, 2017/AND THE
STATE/UNION TERRITORY GST ACT 2017/UNDER
SECTION 20 OF THE IGST ACT, 2017 DATED
20.1.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 129(1)
OF THE CGST ACT, 2017 AND THE STATE/UNION
TERRITORY GST ACT, 2017/UNDER SECTION 2O OF
THE IGST ACT, 2017 DATED 20.1.2021 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
