Case Law Details
Haier Appliances India (P) Ltd Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
Goods belonging to the petitioner, were detained for an alleged discrepancy noticed in respect of the E-way bill raised in connection with invoice. Discrepancy noticed is with regard to the value of the commodity.It is also the case of the detaining authority that the commodity in question was undervalued by the vendor by offering excessive discounts to the purchaser. Reasons shown, that are impugned in this writ petition, are not sufficient for the purposes of detaining the goods in terms of Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
The challenge in the writ petition is to Exts.P8 and P11 detention notices issued to the petitioner detaining goods that were transported at the instance of the petitioner. A perusal of Exts.P8 and P11 notices would indicate that the goods belonging to the petitioner, and covered by Exts.P1 and P1(a) invoices, were detained for an alleged discrepancy noticed in respect of the E-way bill raised in connection with Ext.P1 invoice. I note however that the discrepancy noticed is with regard to the value of the commodity as shown in Ext.P1 invoice, which is Rs.25.60, whereas in the E-way bill, it was shown as Rs.25.66. It is also the case of the detaining authority that the commodity in question was undervalued by the vendor by offering excessive discounts to the purchaser.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
