Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2019 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 875 - HC - GSTDetention of goods - interstate movement - demand of tax alongwith penalty - HELD THAT - On a perusal of Ext.P13 notice, it is seen that the interstate transportation of the goods was being carried out by dealers who did not have a registration as mandated for interstate movement under the CGST Act. On a consideration of the reasons contained in Ext.P13 notice, I do not find the detention to be unjustified. The petitioner is ready to furnish a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount determined in Ext.P13, it is directed that if the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount determined in Ext.P13 notice, then the respondent shall release the consignment and the vehicle to the petitioner. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Detention of consignment of copra for tax and penalty determination due to lack of registration for interstate movement under the CGST Act. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a consignment of copra detained by the respondent due to dealers involved not having the required registration for interstate movement under the CGST Act. The detention notice, Ext.P13, determined the tax and penalty for security to be furnished by the petitioner. The court found the detention justified upon perusal of Ext.P13 notice, noting the lack of proper registration for interstate transportation. However, considering the petitioner's willingness to provide a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount, the court directed the release of the consignment and the vehicle upon furnishing the bank guarantee. The respondent was instructed to proceed with adjudication after releasing the consignment, following the procedure under Section 130 of the GST Act. The petitioner was directed to provide a copy of the writ petition and judgment to the respondent for further action. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the above directives. The judgment balances the need for tax compliance with the provision of an opportunity for the petitioner to furnish security and proceed with the adjudication process under the GST Act.
|