2019 (1) TMI 140 - HC - GST

Detention of goods with vehicle - misclassification in tax rate - Held that - The learned Division Bench of this Court in Renji Lal Damodaran Vs. State Tax Officer 2018 (8) TMI 1145 - KERALA HIGH COURT has dealt with an identical issue - the respondent authorities is 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. Detention of goods due to alleged misclassification in tax rate
2. Relief sought by the petitioner
3. Interpretation of relevant tax laws and rules
4. Application of precedent judgment to the current case

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer in re-processed plastic mats, faced detention of goods and vehicle by the respondent authorities over alleged misclassification in tax rate. Seeking relief, the petitioner filed a writ petition with various prayers, including setting aside the detention order, releasing the goods unconditionally, and declaring the classification of the goods under specific HSN code. Additionally, the petitioner challenged the constitutionality and legality of certain provisions under the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, along with related rules. The petitioner also sought directions to prevent the enforcement of specific rules deemed unconstitutional.

The High Court referred to a previous judgment in Renji Lal Damodaran Vs. State Tax Officer, where a similar issue was addressed by a Division Bench. Relying on 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 per Rule 140(1) of the CGST Rules. By issuing this direction, the Court disposed of the writ petition, providing the petitioner with a specific course of action to secure the release of the detained goods and vehicle.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the detention of goods, the relief sought by the petitioner, the interpretation of tax laws and rules, and the application of a precedent judgment to resolve the current case. The Court's decision to release the goods upon the petitioner meeting specific requirements demonstrates a practical approach to resolving the dispute while upholding the legal framework governing tax classification and enforcement procedures.