2018 (11) TMI 518 - HC - GST

Detention of goods with vehicle - it is alleged that e-way bill shows the place as Palakkad instead of Alappuzha - Held that - An identical issue decided in the case of RENJI LAL DAMODARAN, DAMU & SONS SALES CORPORATION VERSUS STATE TAX OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA AND ASST. STATE TAX OFFICER, KARUNAGAPALLY 2018 (8) TMI 1145 - KERALA HIGH COURT , where it was held that It is directed to release the goods on the appellant furnishing Bank Guarantee for tax and penalty found due and a bond for the value of goods in the form as prescribed under Rule 140(1) of the CGST Rules. The respondent authorities are directed to release the petitioner s goods and vehicle on his furnishing Bank Guarantee for tax and penalty found due and a bond for the value of goods in the form as prescribed under Rule 140(1) of the CGST Rules - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Incorrect e-way bill causing detention of goods under Section 129(3) of SGST Act.
2. Relief sought by the petitioner in the writ petition.
3. Reference to a previous judgment dealing with a similar issue.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, faced detention of goods due to an incorrect e-way bill indicating Palakkad instead of Alappuzha, where the material was supplied to the Electricity Board, Electrical Circle. The authority detained the vehicle and goods under Section 129(3) of the SGST Act. The petitioner challenged this detention through a writ petition.

2. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought various reliefs, including a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order and notice, a writ of mandamus to prevent further proceedings under Section 129 of the Act based on the incorrect e-way bill, and a direction to release the goods without collecting any security under Section 129(1)(c). The petitioner also requested any other necessary writ, order, or direction in the interest of justice.

3. The judgment referred to a previous case, Renji Lal Damodaran Vs. State Tax Officer, where a similar issue was addressed by a Division Bench of the Court. Following the ratio of that judgment, the Court directed the respondent authorities to release the petitioner's goods and vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing a Bank Guarantee for tax and penalty due, along with a bond for the value of goods as prescribed under Rule 140(1) of the CGST Rules. The Court disposed of the writ petition with this direction, providing relief to the petitioner based on the precedent set by the earlier judgment.