M/S. EXOS IT MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE ASSISTANT ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Case at a glance
- Bench
- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
- Neutral citation
- 2025:KER:27764
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of as above
Provisions considered
- Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 s. 129(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing of this writ petition, the temporary ID has now been re-opened and therefore petitioner can access the communications from the appellate authority. It was also submitted that due to the expiry of temporary ID…
Judgment
M/S. EXOS IT MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED FIRST FLOOR, ROAD NO. 1, MID-TOWN PLAZA, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SURESH KUMAR CHATRASASUPALLI, PIN – 500 033 BY ADVS. K.KRISHNA ACHYUTH MENON NIRMAL KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS : 1 2 3 THE ASSISTANT ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ENFORCEMENT SQUAD NO. 2, SGST DEPARTMENT, PERUMANOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682015 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & GST (APPEALS) SGST DEPARTMENT, PERUMANOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682015 THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES SGST DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWERS, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002 WP(C) NO. 5973 OF 2025 2 4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001 BY SMT.JASMIN M.M., GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 5973 OF 2025 3 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- W.P.(C) No.5973 of 2025 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 1st day of April, 2025 JUDGMENT Petitioner had consigned certain goods on 06.06.2023 from their place of business at Telengana to their customer at Bangalore via the courier agency's office at Ernakulam. On 11.06.2023, the consignment was detained under Section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'CGST Act') at Kalamassery, Ernakulam, and the first respondent demanded Rs.4,98,467/- towards penalty. Subsequently, Ext.P4 order under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act was issued, imposing penalty and tax on the petitioner, alleging that the transportation was in contravention of the provisions of the CGST/ SGST Act. Since the petitioner was not a registered tax payer in Kerala, temporary registration was created by the first respondent and demanded payment through the said temporary ID.
Challenging the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner as Ext.P6 using temporary registration. However, despite the lapse of 17 months since the appeal was not disposed of, petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of the appeal in a time bound manner. WP(C) NO. 5973 OF 2025 4 3. In the meantime, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that they could not access the GST portal because of the expiry of the temporary registration. Petitioner also alleges that no defect noticed had been served till the date of filing of the writ petition on the petitioner by the appellate authority, presumably because, the temporary registration would have expired.
Smt. Jasmin M.M., the learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the temporary ID allotted to the petitioner had expired 90 days after it was allotted and that the same can be renewed if the petitioner approaches the 3rd respondent. It was also submitted that defects had been noted in the appeal filed by the petitioner, and unless it is cured, the appeal cannot be disposed.
Operative part
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing of this writ petition, the temporary ID has now been re-opened and therefore petitioner can access the communications from the appellate authority. It was also submitted that due to the expiry of temporary ID, defect noted in the appeal could not be cured. Since the main grievance projected by the petitioner stands redressed by the temporary ID having been renewed/ reopened, I am of the view that the 2 nd respondent must consider the appeal in a time bound manner and dispose of the same, after granting an opportunity to rectify the defects, if any. WP(C) NO. 5973 OF 2025 5 Accordingly, if the petitioner cures the defect noted in the appeal within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the 2nd respondent shall consider Ext.P6 appeal, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. RKM Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE WP(C) NO. 5973 OF 2025 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5973/2025 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 Exhibit P9 Exhibit P10 Exhibit P11 Exhibit P12 COPY OF NOTICE IN FORM GST MOV-07 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 12-06-2023 COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 19-06-2023 COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 29-06-2023 COPY OF ORDER IN FORM GST MOV-09 ISSUED BY THE 01-07-2023 COPY OF RELEASE ORDER IN FORM GST MOV-05 ISSUED BY THE STATE TAX OFFICER DTD. 12-07-2023 COPY F APPEAL IN FORM GST APL-01 FILED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH GST PORTAL DTD. 16-08-2023 COPY OF PROVISIONAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BEARING THE CASE ID NO. AD320823002590K DTD.16-08-2023 COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 07-08-2023 COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 14-10-2023 COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 19-03-2024 COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE GST PORTAL DTD. 16-08-2023 COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 8/2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 04-08-2020 WP(C) NO. 5973 OF 2025 7 Exhibit P13 COPY OF E-MAIL REQUEST FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFOREN THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 08-05-2024
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is disposed of as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — s. 129(1).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.