Kerala High Court
Usman M vs The Commissioner Of State Gst on 30 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.8319 OF 2021(L)
PETITIONER:
USMAN M.
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. LATE HUSSAIN HAJI, MATTUMMAL HOUSE, SHORANUR,
MANAGING PARTNER CEDICOM ELECTRONICS.
BY ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE GST
TAX TOWERS, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002.
2 STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX OFFICER
STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX OFFICE,
OTTAPALAM - 679101.
3 STATE TAX OFFICER
SQUAD NO.II, O/O. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES
TAX (INTELLIGENCE), KERALA GST DEPARTMENT,
PALAKKAD - 678001.
4 MANAGER, CANARA BANK
SHORNUR BRANCH, PALAKKAD - 679121.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.THUSHARA JAMES, GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.8319/2021 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 30th day of March 2021
Heard both sides.
2. Under orders of this Court in W.P.(C) No.18098 of 2020,
goods were released vide release order at Ext.P2 on furnishing
bank guarantee by the petitioner. The adjudication proceedings
continued and those were culminated in the order at Ext.P3 by
which the 3rd respondent had directed the petitioner to pay the
IGST tax amounting to Rs.4,25,181/-. This order at Ext.P3 dated
05.03.2021 is reported to be received by the petitioner on
20.03.2021.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has time of three months' for preferring an appeal
under Section 107 of the CGST Act and he is intending to prefer
the appeal along with stay petition. However, according to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, respondents are invoking the
bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner for release of the
goods. He further submits that the respondents be restrained
from encashing the bank guarantee till filing of the statutory
appeal by the petitioner.
4. Learned Government Pleader opposed the writ petition
by contending that there is determination of the amount under
order at Ext.P3.
5. I have considered the submissions so advanced and
perused the materials placed before me. In terms of Section 107
of the CGST Act read with Rule 108 of the Goods and Services Tax
Rules, the petitioner has time of three months to challenge the
order at Ext.P3 which is received by the petitioner on 20.03.2021.
The petitioner is intending to file statutory appeal within the
prescribed period of limitation.
6. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of
with the following directions:
If the petitioner files statutory appeal challenging the order
at Ext.P3 within the prescribed period of limitation, then the
respondents should not invoke bank guarantee furnished by the
petitioner for a period of one week after filing of the statutory
appeal. Learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent to
communicate this judgment to the 4th respondent for compliance.
Sd-/-
A.M.BADAR
JUDGE
smp
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.9.2020
IN WPC NO.18098/2020.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE ORDER DATED
8.9.2020.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.VC.II/136/2020-21 GST DATED 5.3.2021.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
16.03.2021 NO.VC/II/136/20-21/GST.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED
26.03.2021.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED
26.03.2021 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
NO.8998/2019 DATED 25.03.2019.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
NO.23251/2018 DATED 16.07.2018.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
True Copy
P.S to Judge
smp
