Case Law Details
Coimbatore Jewellers India Private Limited Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
The case of Coimbatore Jewellers India Private Limited vs. Assistant State Tax Officer before the Kerala High Court revolves around a delayed writ petition seeking a refund of GST and penalty paid during the interception of jewellery consignment. Despite the petitioner’s claims, the court dismissed the petition, citing its belated filing.
Coimbatore Jewellers India Private Limited, a registered dealer under the CGST/SGST Act, had a consignment of jewellery intercepted due to a lack of relevant documents. The petitioner paid the demanded tax and penalty of Rs. 3,59,750/- and filed an appeal against the order rejecting it on the ground of delay. In 2024, the petitioner approached the Kerala High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order and relief in the form of mandamus or refund of tax and penalty.
The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition, stating that it lacked substance due to its belated filing. The court emphasized the importance of timely legal action and refused to entertain the petition. Any pending interlocutory application in the petition was also dismissed.
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court’s decision to dismiss the delayed writ petition highlights the significance of adhering to statutory timelines in legal proceedings. Coimbatore Jewellers India Private Limited’s attempt to seek relief for GST refund and penalty was rejected due to the untimely nature of the petition. This case serves as a reminder for parties involved in legal disputes to act promptly to avoid adverse outcomes.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
Petitioner is a private limited Company and, according to the averments made in the writ petition, it is engaged in the business of jewellery. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST/SGST Act’, for short) and the Rules made thereunder. The petitioner’s consignment of jewellery worth Rs.58,21,206/- was intercepted as it was not accompanied with relevant documents as is mandated under the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act and the Rules made thereunder. The said jewellery items were seized and an order was passed determining tax and penalty. The petitioner had remitted the demanded tax and penalty of Rs.3,59,750/- and thereafter the ornaments seized were released to the petitioner, as per order dated 18.12.2017, Ext.P5. The petitioner filed appeal against the said order on 25.5.2019 (Ext.P9), which came to be rejected on the ground of delay, vide Ext.P12 order dated 30.6.2023.
2. Now, in 2024, the petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“i. Issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Exhibit P.12 order, and quash the same.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent officer to complete the adjudication with respect to the goods confiscated under section 129 from the petitioner in respect of which petitioner has paid tax and penalty to release the goods and issue an order in FORM GST MOV -09 and summary of order in FORM GST DRC -07 to facilitate petitioner to file appeal if the proceedings are passed against the petitioner.
iii. Alternatively, to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to refund the tax and penalty collected from the petitioner since no orders are passed so far with respect to the confiscation.”
This Court finds no substance to entertain such a belated writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Pending interlocutory application, if any, in the present writ petition stands dismissed.
Author Bio
