9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 344 - HC - GSTDetention of goods - consignment of goods that was being transported was not accompanied by the necessary declaration in Form KER I, which was mandated for supplies effected in the State - Held that - identical matter has been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in The Commercial Tax Officer And The Intelligence Inspector Versus Madhu. M.B. 2017 (9) TMI 1044 - KERALA HIGH COURT , directing expeditious completion of the adjudication of the matter and permitting release of the goods detained pending adjudication, in terms of Rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - petition disposed off.
Issues: Detention of goods under CGST and SGST Acts due to lack of necessary declaration in Form KER I.
In this case, the petitioner approached the Kerala High Court aggrieved by the detention of goods being transported at his instance under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST) and State Goods and Services Tax Act (SGST). The detention was based on the absence of the required declaration in Form KER I for supplies made within the State. The petitioner argued that the transporter was unable to file a declaration in Form KER II due to the unavailability of the form on the website maintained by the respondents. The petitioner contended that he should not be penalized for the infrastructure lapse on the part of the authorities hindering the transporter from obtaining the necessary forms electronically. Upon hearing both parties, the Court directed the 1st respondent to complete the adjudication process regarding the detention within a week, considering the petitioner's submissions. The Court instructed the respondent to take into account the unavailability of Form KER II on the website, the submission of the manual KER II declaration at the check post during detention, and the online submission of Form KER I on the KVATIS Website by the petitioner. The Court also left open the challenge against the statutory rules' validity for future consideration in a suitable case, as raised in the writ petition. The judgment referenced a previous Division Bench judgment from 2017 and emphasized the need for a prompt resolution of the detention issue in light of the specific circumstances presented by the petitioner.
|
