Unitac Energy Solution Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ass. STO (Kerala High Court)
Kerala High Court has held that detention claiming the consignee was a return defaulter for the last five months, is not a valid ground to justify detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act 2017. The High Court quashed the detention notice observing that the reason cited in the detention notice cannot be a ground for detaining consignment of goods in transit.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGEMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged unlawful seizure and detention of a consignment of goods by the 1st respondent. Ext.P3 is the detention notice issued by the 1st respondent while detaining the said consignment of goods carried on the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-22D- taxguru.in 2424. The reason for detention is stated to be that the consignee, the petitioner herein, was a return defaulter for the last five months. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the provisions of Section 129 of the CGST Act, the reason shown in the detention notice cannot be a ground for detaining a consignment of goods in the course of transit.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of Section 129 of the CGST Act, the reason shown by the respondents in Ext. P3 detention notice is not one that can justify a detention. Accordingly, I quash Ext. taxguru.in P3 detention notice and direct the respondents to release the consignment covered by Ext. P3 notice to the petitioner forthwith on the petitioner producing a copy of of this judgment before the respondents.
