SAJI S. Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a registered dealer, purchased certain goods from Chennai. He had them transported to Kerala. When the goods were in transit, the Assistant State Tax Officer (ASTO), for the reasons not germane here, detained the goods and issued the Ext.P3 notice, dated 30.09.2018.

(2.) Based on the demand in the Ext.P3 notice, the consignor paid the tax and penalty, as is evident from Ext.P4 payment receipt. But the remittance was made under the head 'SGST'.

(3.) The petitioner, who is the consignee and transporter, insists that the consignor paid the tax and penalty under that only based on the ASTO's directions. But the fact remains that the remittance must have been under the head 'IGST'. So the authorities have refused to release the goods. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.