Case Law Details
Relcon Foundations (P) Ltd. Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
A perusal of Ext.P1 order would indicate that the detention of the vehicle carrying the goods was on the ground that the GSTR 3B returns had not been filed from June 2018 and GSTR I had not been filed from March 2019. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said grounds cannot be justified for detention of the vehicle under Section 129 of the KGST Act.
Reasons stated in Ext.P1 order cannot be a justification for detaining the goods in terms of Section 129 of the KGST Act. Similarly, the said ground cannot form the basis of Ext.P4 notice proposing confiscation of the goods detained inasmuch as the ingredients of the offence covered by Section 130 are not satisfied in in the instant case.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P1 order and Ext.P4 notice proposing confiscation of the goods belonging to the petitioner that were detained while in transit. A perusal of Ext.P1 order would indicate that the detention of the vehicle carrying the goods was on the ground that the GSTR 3B returns had not been filed from June 2018 and GSTR I had not been filed from March 2019. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said grounds cannot be justified for detention of the vehicle under Section 129 of the KGST Act.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
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 the reasons stated in Ext.P1 order cannot be a justification for detaining the goods in terms of Section 129 of the KGST Act. Similarly, the said ground cannot form the basis of Ext.P4 notice proposing confiscation of the goods detained inasmuch as the ingredients of the offence covered by Section 130 are not satisfied taxguru.in in the instant case. I, therefore, dispose the writ petition by quashing Exts.P1 and P4 and directing the 1st respondent to forthwith release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner on the petitioner producing a copy of the judgment before the said respondent. I make it clear that nothing in this judgment will prevent the respondents from initiating any penal action against the goods, if warranted, by following the procedure under the GST Act.
Non filing of return cannot be ground of detention of goods as it is not a voilation of section 68 (3)