News

K. Karunakaran Vs Asst. State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)

The petitioner, engaged in works contract, purchased material from Ghaziabad, as seen from Ext.P1 invoice. Ext.P2 e-way bill, however, did not contain the details of the vehicle used for the transport. The vehicle and the goods detained, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

2. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought the following reliefs:

“(i) To quash Exts.P3 & P3(a) and Exts.P4 & P4(b) issued by the 1st respondent by the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction.

(ii) To direct the 1st respondent to release the goods and the lorries detained by Exts.P3 & P3(a) & Exts.P4 to P4(b) unconditionally forthwith by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction.

(iii) To grant the petitioner such other incidental reliefs including the costs of these proceedings”.

3. The learned Division Bench of this Court in Renji Lal Damodaran Vs. State Tax Officer dealt with an identicalissue.

4. Applying the ratio of that judgment, I direct that respondent authorities to release the petitioner’s goods and vehicle on his “furnishing Bank Guarantee for tax and penalty found due and a bond for the value of goods in the form as prescribed under Rule 140(1) of the CGST

Rules”.

With the above direction I dispose of the writ petition.

Note:

1 Judgment dated 06.08.2018 in W.A. No.1640 of 2018