R. Kavitha vs. The Asst. State Tax Officer
(Kerala High Court, Kerala)

Case Law
Petitioner / Applicant
R. Kavitha
The Asst. State Tax Officer
Kerala High Court
Feb 5, 2020
Order No.
W.P.(C.) No. 3020 of 2020
TR Citation
2020 (2) TR 1435
Related HSN Chapter/s
Related HSN Code


The facts set up in the W.P.(C.) are as follows :

That the petitioner is engaged in transportation of heavy commodities using trailers. The petitioner had transported plate metal plats from Chattisgarh to Calicut by a trailer bearing registration No. as per Ext.P1 along with Ext.P3 e-way bill. The said vehicle along with goods is detained by the 1st respondent herein under Sec.129(1) of the CGST Act demanding payment of tax and penalty. The only reason for detention is that the vehicle number in Part B of the e-way bill mismatches with the actual vehicle number. Petitioner had transported the goods by a trailer with prime mover bearing registration No. as per Ext.P1. When the goods reached near Coimbatore, the said prime mover had broken down. The said prime mover had been repaired, but could not be moved hence subjected to further substantial repairs. The goods had weighed 33.310 metric tonnes and could not be shifted without using a crane or other handling equipment. Hence, the petitioner had to wait for another prime mover to reach Coimbatore. The trailer had been attached to the said prime mover bearing registration No. as per Ext.P2. It is only on account of failure of repairs of the former prime mover that the latter bearing registration no. as per Ext.P2 had been attached to the trailer. So much so, there is no change in the trailer but only the prime mover. The detention of the vehicle had been on 31.01.2020 at 11.30 a.m. as per Exts.P4 to P4 (d). Even though the petitioner had intimated the consignor immediately after the said substitution of prime mover, part B details got updated only at 12.35 p.m. as evidenced by Ext.P3. In any event, for the consignor’s delay in updating part B of the e-way bill, petitioner is not to be penalised.

2. In the light of these averments and contentions, the petitioner has filed the instant W.P.(C.) with the following prayers :

“(i) To quash Exts.P4 to P4(d) proceedings 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 vehicle detained as per Exts. P4 to P4(d) 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. Heard Sri.Harisankar V.Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. M.M.Jasmine, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents

4. After hearing both sides and taking note of the facts and circumstances of this case as disclosed from the pleadings and materials on record, it is ordered that the goods and vehicle detained pursuant to Ext.P4 series of orders, shall be released by the 1st respondent to the petitioner on the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for the value of the amounts shown in those orders.

5. Thereafter, the 1st respondent may finalise the adjudication proceedings pursuant to the impugned Ext.P4 series of orders, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, through the counsel, if any and orders may be passed finalising the said proceedings, without much delay, preferably within a period of 4-6 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

With these observations and directions, the above W.P.(C.) will stand disposed of.

  • Home
  • /
  • caselaw
  • /
  • r kavitha vs the asst state tax officer kerala high court

BUSY is a simple, yet powerful GST / VAT compliant Business Accounting Software that has everything you need to grow your business.

phone Sales & Support:

+91 82 82 82 82 82
+91 11 - 4096 4096