In the instant case, petitioner stated that the allegation of under invoicing is bad and baseless. The matter requires consideration. On the other hand, respondent contend that the assessment done by the authority under the provisions of Section 129 (1) (a) of CGST Act is justified.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017---Goods in Transit –----The petitioner challenged the appellate order dated 18.10.2021 pertaining to assessment year 2021-22 under the provisions of Section 129 (3) of the Act. The petitioner counsel contended that it is the free will of the supplier of goods to determine the price of the goods and the E-way bill was not made due to the value of the goods being less than Rs. 50,000/- and the allegation of under invoicing is bad and baseless. The court observed that the matter requires consideration.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court granted four weeks' time to file a counter affidavit. One week thereafter is allowed to file rejoinder affidavit, if any.
In the instant case, petitioner stated that the allegation of under invoicing is bad and baseless. The matter requires consideration. On the other hand, respondent contend that the assessment done by the authority under the provisions of Section 129 (1) (a) of CGST Act is justified.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017---Goods in Transit –----The petitioner challenged the appellate order dated 18.10.2021 pertaining to assessment year 2021-22 under the provisions of Section 129 (3) of the Act. The petitioner counsel contended that it is the free will of the supplier of goods to determine the price of the goods and the E-way bill was not made due to the value of the goods being less than Rs. 50,000/- and the allegation of under invoicing is bad and baseless. The court observed that the matter requires consideration.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court granted four weeks' time to file a counter affidavit. One week thereafter is allowed to file rejoinder affidavit, if any.