Page 124 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

370 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
67. Therefore the Writ Petition is allowed; the notice F. No.
INV/DGCEI/HZU/ST/49/201617, dated 11-6-2019 issued by the 3rd respond-
ent is set aside; and it is held that the petitioner-Bank is entitled to appropriate
the sum of Rs. 35,75,95,400/- deposited towards Income Tax refund by the 4th
respondent in the Bank account of the 6th respondent with the petitioner’s
branch at CCG Branch at Hyderabad towards dues owed to petitioner by the 6th
respondent. IA No. 2 and 3 of 2019 are dismissed. No costs.
68. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, in this Writ Pe-
tition, shall stand closed.
_______

2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 370 (Ker.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Amit Rawal, J.
FAWAS ASSOCIATED AGENCIES
Versus
ASSTT. STATE TAX OFFICER, KERALA SGST DEPTT.,
ALUVA
ASSTT. STATE TAX OFFICER
W.P. (C) No. 4731 of 2020 (N), decided on 19-2-2020
Appealable order - Order for detention of vehicle and goods - Dismis-
sal of appeal filed against detention order - Order in Section 129(3) of Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 can in common wording be construed as an
“order” - Adjudication order passed during pendency of appeal - Appeal could
have been rectified by an amendment appropriately to be against adjudication
order - Authorities ought not to have adopted a rigid approach and rejected
appeal as not maintainable against notice - Order dismissing appeal set aside -
Appeal restored granting liberty to petitioner to challenge Adjudication order
in accordance with law - Section 129 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 - Sections 107 and 129 of Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. - On a
plain and simple reading of the provisions of the Act, sub-section (3) of Section 129 en-
visages that the proper officer detaining or seizing goods or conveyances shall issue a
notice specifying the tax and penalty payable and thereafter, pass an order for payment of
tax and penalty under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) and on payment of the amount
referred to in sub-section (1) all the proceedings in respect of notice specified in sub-
section (3) shall be again to be concluded. The expression ‘order’ used in sub-section (3)
can in common wording can be construed to be an order. The litigants do not have the
acumen of legalities of the order particularly when the word ‘order’ is reflected in sub-
section (3). [paras 5, 6, 7, 8]
Petition disposed of
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Aji V. Dev, Alan Priyadarshi Dev and Kiran
Ramachandran Nair, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Shri J. Harikumar, SC and Dr. Thushara James, GP,
for the Respondent.
[Judgment]. - The sole question involved in this case is whether Ext.P4,
dated 28-9-2018 demanding tax and penalty from the petitioner on account of
GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  124