Page 193 - GSTL_30th April 2020_Vol 35_Part 5

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 663
Detention (Contd.)
inadvertent mistake in invoice can be corrected by supplier while filing
return, prima facie, has force - While issues raised by Department are
subject matter of adjudication and are not commented upon on merits,
since petitioner has made out a strong case for release of goods and has
no previous adverse record, detained goods and vehicle be released by
furnishing a simple Bond instead of obtaining any Bank Guarantee -
However, department is at liberty to proceed with adjudication as per
law which may be taken up after 20th February, 2020 after supplier has
filed return for relevant month and finished by mid-march - Section 129
of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Kerala Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 — Umiya Enterprise v. Asstt. State Tax Officer, SGST Deptt., Palakkad
(Ker.) .......................................... 78
— of goods - Jurisdiction of officer to detain goods - Transit of goods from
Karnataka to Kerala - Detention by officer in Kerala on the ground that
goods misclassified - Tax paid at 12% classifying goods under HSN
Codes 2202 99 20 - Assessee already applied for advanced ruling
pertaining to same matter in Gujarat and matter pending before High
Court with interim stay favouring assessee - Case of bona fide
miscalculation as to whether goods would be exigible to 12% or 28% -
Detention order and consequential notices not sustainable and to be
quashed - Goods to be released with direction that inspecting authority
of Kerala to prepare a report and submit it to assessing authority,
Karnataka for taking action - Section 129 of Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 — Hindustan Coca Cola Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt. State Tax Officer, SGST Deptt.,
Palakkad (Ker.) ..................................... 545
— of goods - Provisional release of goods - Since goods already lying seized
with effect from 27-2-2020, goods can be released on furnishing of bank
guarantee for full amount - No opinion expressed on merits as to strict
applicability as it was in domain of adjudicating authority - Section 129 of
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Shree Engineers Contractors Pvt.
Ltd. v. Asstt. State Tax Officer (Ker.) ........................... 399
— of goods under GST, time-limit for payment of tax thereafter - See under
NOTICE ........................................ 64
— of vehicle and goods - Vehicle found in wrong destination - Does not
automatically lead to any presumption that there was intention on part of
assessee to sell goods at local market evading tax - Invoice in custody of
driver of vehicle indicating that IGST @ 18% already collected and goods
were coming from Karnataka to Balanagar in Hyderabad - Such goods
not to be treated as having escaped tax and fresh tax and penalty cannot
be imposed on assessee - No warrant to detain vehicle along with goods,
demand payment tax and penalty - Assessee making payment owing to
wedding ceremony in his family at that point of time in order to be able
to secure release of vehicle carrying goods at instance of driver of vehicle
- Such payment to be presumed as one made due to economic duress and
assessee cannot be blamed for paying amount without protest - No good
and sufficient reasons for detention of vehicle and goods which it was
carrying when the transaction causing movement of goods was

GST LAW TIMES  30th April 2020  193