Goods in Transit — In the instant case, petitioner, who is engaged in the business of trading of motor cycles, has entered into a lease agreement with reference to an additional place of business at Karunagappally. The above intention of the petitioner to start additional place of business was intimated to the jurisdictional officer, which can be seen from Ext.P-1. It is stated that a consignment of 10 motor cycles for exhibition purposes at the new premises have been detained by the 1st respondent, as according to the 1st respondent, the petitioner cannot have such additional place of business at Karunagappally. The petitioner states that the 1st respondent does not have authority to do so and only the jurisdictional authority has power to do so. The above detention of goods was challenged by the petitioner.

Held that— it is only to be held that the impugned order at Ext.P-7 is illegal and ultra vires and the same has been issued in patent violation of the elementary cannons of natural justice and fairness and the said order is liable to be quashed.

Ahnas Mohammed Vs. The Asst. State Tax Officer, The Commissioner of State GST [2020] 20 TAXLOK.COM 137 (Kerala)