Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1032 (KER)

Sobha Enterprises v. Asst. Enforcement Officer

2025-04-11

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

body2025
JUDGMENT : Petitioner seeks for a direction for release of the goods and the vehicle covered by Ext.P9, after payment of tax and penalty in respect of 4000 kgs. of goods found in excess of that covered by Ext.P1 invoice and Ext.P2 E-way bill. 2. Petitioner is a taxpayer under the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 and is engaged in the purchase and supply of arecanut. On 03.04.2025, while the petitioner was allegedly transporting arecanut in a vehicle bearing No.MH40-CM3244, it was intercepted and a statement of the driver was taken, as evident from Ext.P3. Subsequently, an order for physical verification of the goods was issued on 03.04.2025. In the meantime, petitioner requested by Ext.P5 to release the vehicle after accepting the tax and penalty calculated on the value in excess of what is covered by E-way bill. Though physical verification was carried out on 09.04.2025, the officer insisted the petitioner to appear for carrying out detailed inspection and issued an order of detention under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act. It is at this juncture that petitioner after filing Ext.P10 petition seeking release of the vehicle and the goods, has approached this Court seeking for the direction as mentioned earlier. 3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions submitted that an order of detention has been issued and a detailed verification of the goods is required to be done for which purpose the petitioner was asked to be present in person. However, since he has not yet appeared, the verification could not be carried out in its entirety. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand submitted that Ext.P10 was submitted in person and that the statement of the respondent that there was no personal appearance is incorrect. 5. On a perusal of the records produced, as well as on an appreciation of the contentions raised, it is evident that the respondent had initiated proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act. The statutory scheme provides for release of the goods on compliance with the stipulations therein. Specific orders from this Court is not necessary. 6. Petitioner has expressed its willingness to pay the amount of penalty or other sum that may be imposed. The statutory scheme provides for release of the goods on compliance with the stipulations therein. Specific orders from this Court is not necessary. 6. Petitioner has expressed its willingness to pay the amount of penalty or other sum that may be imposed. In such circumstances, there seems to be no serious dispute except that the respondent wants to have a physical verification of the entire goods to identify whether any other proceedings are required to be initiated as contemplated by the statute or otherwise. 7. In such circumstances, I am of the view that no orders are required to be issued except to observe that as and when petitioner appears before the respondent, the physical verification of the goods shall be carried out without any delay and if any penalty or other demands are made in accordance with Section 129 of the CGST Act and if the petitioner pays the same, appropriate orders shall be issued. On compliance of such orders, respondent shall release the goods and vehicle, in accordance with law. It is clarified that physical verification of the entire goods shall be carried out on the day the petitioner appears before the respondent. Writ petition is disposed of.