Disposed

Exide Industries Limited, v. Assistant State Tax Officer

Kerala HC28 May 2019WP(C)/14602/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the legality of detention orders and show cause notices under the CGST Act. The Court did not entertain the petition on merits but ordered the release of detained goods upon receipt of a bank guarantee within 12 hours and directed the authority to conclude the inquiry within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Release of detained goods within 12 hours upon receipt of bank guarantee; authority to complete inquiry and pass order within 4 weeks.

Exide Industries Limited, Vs Assistant State Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No. 14602 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HALDIA, WEST BENGAL-721602, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY JOSHY JOSEPH.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR SRI.N.R.SAJ

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, SURVEILLANCE SQUAD NO. 7, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM-691 309

¶11

GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES.

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

-2-

¶14

WP(C).No. 14602 of 2019

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P2 notices issued by the respondent as illegal and without jurisdiction. Ext.P1 is an order of detention made under Section 129 (1) of CGST Act, 2017 and Ext.P2 is a notice issued under Section 129 (3) of the Act. The petitioner contends that the subject matter of Exts.P1 and P2 is fully compliant with all the requirements of the Act but the petitioner was not in a position to demonstrate at the time of inspection or within the time given by the authorities about the correctness of contents of documents with reference

¶17

to goods transported. Therefore, the proceedings now initiated through Exts.P1 and P2 are not warranted and illegal.

¶18

The learned Government Pleader objects to the maintainability of the writ petition. Firstly, she contends that from the very admission made by the petitioner there is an omission or illegality in transportation of goods. The omission

¶19

-3-

¶20

WP(C).No. 14602 of 2019

¶21

is that admittedly at the time of inspection or detention of goods the transporter could not produce the documents required for establishing that the goods are under valid transit. The detention order cannot and could not be treated

¶22

as final, for accor ding to her section 129 deals with and provides for not only detention but also for release of goods, subject to the petitioner complying with the mandate of Section 129 of the Act. According to her, the petitioner, if insists for the release of goods, the petitioner can furnish the bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount demanded through Ext.P2 and the authority does not have difficulty in releasing the detained goods forthwith.

¶23

By way of reply, Sri.Rajesh Nambiar submits that the petitioner since is confident that the transit of goods was strictly in accordance with the requirements of law, the detention of goods is not warranted, the petitioner has no

¶24

-4-

¶25

WP(C).No. 14602 of 2019

¶26

difficulty in furnishing the bank guarantee, but he states that

¶27

the authority will not pass final orders in this behalf, resulting in the petitioner continuously keeping the bank guarantee alive. He further submits that the bank guarantee is also provided at substantial commission by the banker and for no reason the petitioner loses in the bargain.

¶28

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The writ petition is disposed of by this order.

¶29

The issues raised are at preliminary stage and this Court is not convinced to entertain the writ petition and adjudicate upon merits at this stage. To conform to the scheme under the Act, the writ petition is disposed of by this order.

¶30

The petitioner submits to respondents bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount payable as per Ext.P2 and applies for release of goods by enclosing a copy of this order

¶31

-5-

¶32

WP(C).No. 14602 of 2019

¶33

within two days from today. The respondent shall release the goods detained under Ext.P1 and subjected to detention in Ext.P2, within twelve hours from the date and time of receipt of bank guarantee. The bank guarantee shall be kept valid for six weeks from today. The respondent shall complete the enquiry, afford fair and reasonable opportunity as envisaged under the Act to petitioner, pass and communicate the order within four weeks from today. The respondent, if fails to pass the order as directed, i.e. within four weeks from today, by this Court; the petitioner is not under obligation to keep the bank guarantee alive beyond six weeks.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI JUDGE

WP(C).No. 14602 of 2019

¶38

-6-

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION UNDER SECTION 129(1) OF THE SGST ACT DATED 09.05.2019. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 9.05.2019 UNDER SECTIN 129 (3) OF THE SGST ACT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.05.2019.

Exide Industries Limited, v. Assistant State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Exide Industries Limited, v. Assistant State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.K.Nazar, Vs Attingal Municipality

Molly Suresh Vs District Collector

Anulal O., Vs the Union of India

Plus Max Duty Private Limited, Vs P.N.Rao

P.U.Mohandas Vs the Regional Transport Officer/Taxation Officer

Kovilakam Inn India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)