^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

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. |

HAIER APPLIANCES INDIA PVT. LTD. (COCHIN) vs. THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER III
(Kerala High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

Pet. Counsel

Blossom Mathew

Res. Counsel

Thushara James

Petitioner / Applicant	HAIER APPLIANCES INDIA PVT. LTD. (COCHIN)
Respondent	THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER III
Court	Kerala High Court
State	Kerala
Date	Nov 28, 2019
Order No.	W.P(C). No.32348 OF 2019
Citation	2019(11) TAXREPLY 1675
Original Order
My Favorites	Add to Fav ☆ Add to favorites.

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

AA |

ORDER
The challenge in the writ petition is to Exts.P8 and P11 detention notices issued to the petitioner detaining goods that were transported at the instance of the petitioner. A perusal of Exts.P8 and P11 notices would indicate that the goods belonging to the petitioner, and covered by Exts.P1 and P1(a) invoices, were detained for an alleged discrepancy noticed in respect of the Eway bill raised in connection with Ext.P1 invoice. I note however that the discrepancy noticed is with regard to the value of the commodity as shown in Ext.P1 invoice, which is ₹ 25.60, whereas in the E-way bill, it was shown as ₹ 25.66. It is also the case of the detaining authority that the commodity in question was undervalued by the vendor by offering excessive discounts to the purchaser. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also ....