^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

Dynamic Website Plans

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes

GST Forms

My Favourites ^New

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Staff Manager ^New

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

DHANASWAROOPDAS PROPRIETOR, MEGHA MARKETING vs. ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
(Kerala High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

Pet. Counsel

Tomson T.emmanuel

Res. Counsel

Shamsudheen.v.k

Sreelal N. Warrier

Petitioner / Applicant	DHANASWAROOPDAS PROPRIETOR, MEGHA MARKETING
Respondent	ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Court	Kerala High Court
State	Kerala
Date	Sep 18, 2017
Order No.	W.P.(C). No. 29675 of 2017
Citation	2017(9) TAXREPLY 3045
Original Order
My Favorites	Add to Fav ☆ Add to favorites.

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

AA |

ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by a detention, of goods that were being transported at his instance, by the authorities under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST) and State Goods and Services Tax Act (SGST). In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the detention as evidenced by Ext.P3 was on the ground that the consignment of goods that was being transported was not accompanied by the necessary declaration in Form KER I, which was mandated for supplies effected in the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he had entrusted the goods to a transporter and the transporter was obliged to file a declaration in Form KER II, and inasmuch the respondents had not enabled the generation of a KER II declaration in the website, it was impossible for the transporter to download the KER II declaration electronically and it was under those circumstances that the detention was necessitated. It is his case that the petitioner c....