^®
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 ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

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. |

RAMESH IRON AND STEEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED vs. STATE TAX OFFICER
(Kerala High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Pet. Counsel

A.kumar

P.j.anilkumar

P.s.sree Prasad

Res. Counsel

C K Govindan

Petitioner / Applicant	RAMESH IRON AND STEEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED
Respondent	STATE TAX OFFICER
Court	Kerala High Court
State	Kerala
Date	Jan 5, 2021
Order No.	WP(C). No. 29172 OF 2020(V)
Citation	2021(1) TAXREPLY 3713
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

Related Tags :

☍

Section 129

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

AA |

ORDER
Petitioner challenges Exts.P5, P6 and P8. Ext.P8 is an order issued by the respondent under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (For short, the Act). Petitioner contends that his vehicle was detained under Section 129(1) on the ground that there was a violation of Rule 138 of the GST Rules, since the E-Way bill issue had expired few hours before the vehicle was detained. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. A Kumar, further contends, that the appellate remedy available under the statute is of no consequence in the instant case in view of the peculiar facts arising. He seeks indulgence of this Court to interfere in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The learned counsel refers to other writ petitions pending consideration before this Court, wherein, similar contentions are raised and which have been already heard by this Court and decisions awaited. Coming to the facts of this case, it was contended that, the respon....