KANIYAMPARAMBIL STEELS VERSUS THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICE, THE STATE TAX OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR, THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THE UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI AND THE BRANCH MANAGER, KADUTHURUTHY

Release of detained goods – Bank Guarantee – Held that:- The petitioner has already filed a statutory appeal. It will suffice if this Court recalls its judgment under review and dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities not to encash the Bank guarantee until the statutory appeal is disposed of.

No.- RP. No. 703 of 2018 IN WP (C). 13980/2018

Dated.- September 5, 2018

Citations:

  1. KANIAYAMPARAMBIL STEELS Versus ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD-V, THE STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD -V, MATTANCHERRY AT PERUMBAVOOR, THE COMMISSIONR OF STATE TAX STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY IT’S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND THE BRANCH MANAGER SOUTH INDIAN BANK, KADUTHURUTHY – 2018 (7) TMI 1488 – KERALA HIGH COURT

MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

For The Petitioner : Adv. Aji V. Dev

ORDER

This Court on 19th July 2018 disposed of WP(C) No.13980 of 2018 with the following direction:

In the light of the Division Bench’s decision in W.A. No. 1802 of 2017, I dispose of the writ petition, directing the competent authority to complete the adjudication under Section 129 of the CGST Act, within a week from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. I further hold that if the petitioner complies with Rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, the authority will release the detained goods with no further delay.”

2. Now, the petitioner has come up with this review petition. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner has already had the goods released after its providing the Bank guarantee. And that was based on a direction of this Court in earlier writ petition: WP(C) No.1219 of 2018.

3. In fact, the petitioner in this writ petition sought the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari by quashing Ext.P7 proceedings as illegal and unconstitutional.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction staying any step to invoke Ext.P4 bank guarantee pursuant to Exhibit P7 proceedings until filing an appeal under the CGST/SGST Acts.

4. Now the petitioner’s counsel contends that pending this review petition, the petitioner has already filed a statutory appeal. It will suffice if this Court recalls its judgment under review and dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities not to encash the Bank guarantee until the statutory appeal is disposed of.

5. The learned Government Pleader, too, has submitted that the respondent authorities will keep the Bank guarantee intact until the petitioner’s appeal is disposed of.

6. I, therefore, recall the judgment dated 19.07.02018 and dispose of the writ petition, holding that the respondent officials will not encash the Bank guarantee until the petitioner’s statutory appeal is considered on merits.

With these observations, the review petition stands disposed of.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *