Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 21]

Kerala High Court

Renji Lal Damodaran vs State Tax Officer on 31 July, 2018

Bench: K.Vinod Chandran, Ashok Menon

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT:

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
                                   &
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

           MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1940

                      WA.No. 1640 of 2018 IN WPC. 25661/2018


AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.25661/2018 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
                             DATED 31-07-2018

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:-


       RENJI LAL DAMODARAN,
       DAMU & SONS SALES CORPORATION,
       BEHIND SATHYA SAI HOSPITAL, PULAMON P.O.,
       KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.


       BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
               SMT.MEERA V.MENON
               SMT.K.KRISHNA



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1.     STATE TAX OFFICER,
       KOTTARAKKARA- 680 121.

2.     ASST. STATE TAX OFFICER,
       SQUAD NO.III, DEPARTMENT OF STATE GST,
       KOLLAM AT KARUNAGAPALLY - 683 101.

       BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ


    THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-08-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sp

           K. VINOD CHANDRAN & ASHOK MENON, JJ.
         ---------------------------------------
                   W.A. No.1640 of 2018
         ---------------------------------------
         Dated, this the 6th day of August, 2018

                            JUDGMENT

Vinod Chandran, J.

The appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.25661 of 2018 dated 31.07.2018. The appellant's goods were detained on inspection and notice was issued under Section 129 of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for brevity, the KGST Act] and Rule 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 [for brevity, the CGST Rules].

2. The first contention is that there is no cause for directing a Bank Guarantee to be furnished. The Section specifically speaks of a Bank Guarantee and we find that the appellant had agreed to furnish a Bank Guarantee before the W.A. No.1640 of 2018 2 learned Single Judge. We do not think any interference can be caused on that aspect.

3. The second contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is that the Bank Guarantee need be furnished only for the tax and penalty which could be imposed and the value of goods could be secured by a bond in the form FORM GST INS-04. We need only refer to Rule 140(1) of the CGST Rules, which is as follows:

b