The vital contention urged by the petitioner that the so called error pointed out by the respondent, that the address shown in the invoice is different from the address shown in the E Way bill is only a clerical mistake and is not a serious mistake which should justify the detention and penalty proceedings.
Goods in transit— In the instant case, petitioner is engaged in the business of Timber and Timber products.
The respondent seized the vehicle when the goods were being unloaded in the firm's premises at Kizhissery, Malappuram and the department issued Notice. The Notice was issued under Sec.129(3) of CGST Act.
The petitioner firm had sent a reply to the 1st respondent, furnishing an explanation against the Notice for the wrongful confinement of the petitioner's consignment. In its explanation, the petitioner's firm has clarified the reason as to why there is no document seen accompanied to unload the goods at Kizhissery. As a matter of fact, there is no evasion of tax from the part of petitioner and for a trivial clerical error the vehicle as well as the goods are detained stating that vehicle will be released only on payment of amount as per the demand notice. The seizure as well as the detention of the vehicle and goods is totally illegal.
The intention of the 1st respondent is only to extract money from the petitioner by way imposing penalty and other charges. As the vehicle and goods were illegally seized, the pressure is exerted on the petitioner to make the payment and get the goods released.
Held that— The address shown in the invoice is different from the address shown in the E Way bill etc. is only a clerical mistake and is not a serious mistake which should justify the detention and penalty proceedings
The vital contention urged by the petitioner that the so called error pointed out by the respondent, that the address shown in the invoice is different from the address shown in the E Way bill is only a clerical mistake and is not a serious mistake which should justify the detention and penalty proceedings.
Goods in transit— In the instant case, petitioner is engaged in the business of Timber and Timber products.
The respondent seized the vehicle when the goods were being unloaded in the firm's premises at Kizhissery, Malappuram and the department issued Notice. The Notice was issued under Sec.129(3) of CGST Act.
The petitioner firm had sent a reply to the 1st respondent, furnishing an explanation against the Notice for the wrongful confinement of the petitioner's consignment. In its explanation, the petitioner's firm has clarified the reason as to why there is no document seen accompanied to unload the goods at Kizhissery. As a matter of fact, there is no evasion of tax from the part of petitioner and for a trivial clerical error the vehicle as well as the goods are detained stating that vehicle will be released only on payment of amount as per the demand notice. The seizure as well as the detention of the vehicle and goods is totally illegal.
The intention of the 1st respondent is only to extract money from the petitioner by way imposing penalty and other charges. As the vehicle and goods were illegally seized, the pressure is exerted on the petitioner to make the payment and get the goods released.
Held that— The address shown in the invoice is different from the address shown in the E Way bill etc. is only a clerical mistake and is not a serious mistake which should justify the detention and penalty proceedings