The petitioner is having opportunity of hearing before the authority under the GST Act in the wake of receipt of notice under Section 129(3) by him. The petition as such is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly rejected.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017---Goods in Transit -- The petitioner challenging detention order submitted that his goods were accompanied by proper e-way bill. In transit, goods were shifted from one vehicle to another vehicle for further transportation. But on 15.01.2020, the respondent intercepted the vehicle. The petitioner counsel accepted that e-way bill had expired on 14.01.2020, but argued that in view of proviso clause to Rule 138 of the Rules, 2017, there is no necessity for having e-way bill, as the goods were to be transported for a distances up to 50 kms only, within the State. The omission to extend the e-way bill is only a minor offence, as the goods were covered by proper tax invoice. The respondent counsel submitted that Form GST MOV-02 has already been issued. The court observed that goods were detained and detention order was issued because validity of the e-way bill had expired and it was not re-validated within the prescribed time. The matter is at present resting at the SCN stage. Rule 138(8) of the said Rules makes e-way bill mandatory during the course of conveyance of goods. The petitioner is having opportunity of hearing before the authority.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court rejected the petition.