(1.) The petitioner, based at Bangalore, imports Kitchen cabinets, then, supplies and installs them in the houses of the customers, on their placing the orders. On 21.11.2018, the petitioner sent a consignment of three sets of kitchen cabinets to be installed in the houses of the customers in Thalassery and Kozhikode. The petitioner proposed to send them to Ernakulam and from there, it wanted to distribute to the customers at Thalassery and Kozhikode, through local conveyance. The petitioner thus claims to have generated the invoice and e-way bill at 5.57 PM on 21.11.2018 and dispatched the goods through a truck.
(2.) As the petitioner pleads, because of the customers' demand and also as a matter of commercial experiency, rather than route the consignment through Ernakulam, it sent the goods directly to the customers. En route, the Assistant State Tax Officer intercepted the goods and detained them. On his demand, the vehicle driver showed the invoices and e-way bills meant for intra-state transport, that is from Ernakulam to Thalassery and Kozhikode. He could not show the e-way bill from Bangalore to Ernakulam.
(3.) In response to the statutory notice issued, the petitioner submitted the Ext.P15 reply, besides pleading personally before the authorities for the release of the goods. But as the Assistant State Tax Officer persisted with the demand of statutory compliance under Section 129 of the GST Act, for the provisional release of the goods, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.