Suraj Hitech Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P8 order of detention that detained goods that were transit, on the ground that Part B of the e-way bill was not updated or generated at the time of inspection. On a perusal of the documents produced in the writ petition, it is evident that while a notice of inspection was purportedly issued on 6.11.2020 and a notice is stated to have been served to the petitioner scheduling the inspection of the goods on 11.11.2020, the detention order in FORM GST MOV-6 was issued to the petitioner on 18.11.2020. It would appear that, in the meanwhile, between the date of apprehending the goods at the parcel office and the date on which the order of detention was passed, the e-way bill had already been updated by filling the Part B thereof. This is evident from Ext.P6 that is produced along with the writ petition.
Taking note of the said development, I am of the view that in as much as the defects did not subsist on the date of passing of Ext.P8 order of detention, the detention cannot be said to be justified for the purpose of Section 129 of the GST Act. Accordingly, I quash Exts.P7 order and P8 notice and direct the respondents to release the goods belonging to the petitioner on the petitioner producing a copy of this judgment before the respondents. The learned Government Pleader shall communicate the gist of this judgment to the respondents to enable the petitioner to expeditious the clearance of the goods.
