2018 (12) TMI 841 - HC - GST

Detention of goods - Bank Guarantee - Penalty - Held that - The issue is decided in the case of KANIYAMPARAMBIL STEELS 2018 (10) TMI 1518 - KERALA HIGH COURT , where it was held that The petitioner has already filed a statutory appeal. It will suffice if this Court recalls its judgment under review and dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities not to encash the Bank guarantee until the statutory appeal is disposed of - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks relief through a writ petition against the 1st respondent, challenging the proceedings and penalties imposed under the CGST Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought various reliefs through the writ petition, including a mandamus to drop the proceedings, a declaration that non-filling up of Part-B does not fall under Section 129(1)(a), limiting the penalty to Section 126(1) or Section 122(iv) of the CGST Act, refund of excess penalty via Bank Guarantee, and quashing of Exhibit P6 notice by a writ of certiorari. Both counsels agreed that the issues were covered in the petitioner's favor by a previous judgment of the Court in W.P.(C) No.13980 of 2018, with a modified order dated 05th September 2018 in RP No. 703 of 2018. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, applying the ratio of the referenced judgment.

This judgment highlights the importance of legal precedents and how they can impact the outcome of a case. By referencing a previous judgment where similar issues were addressed in favor of the petitioner, the Court was able to resolve the current matter efficiently. The petitioner's claims were considered in light of existing legal interpretations, ensuring consistency in the application of the law. The decision to dispose of the writ petition based on the ratio of the earlier judgment demonstrates the significance of established legal principles in guiding judicial decisions.