The non-registration of the consignor, or the alleged mis-classification of the goods under transportation, cannot be a ground for detention under Section 129 of the GST Act.
since the transportation of exempted goods was not covered by a delivery challan, the respondents were justified in detaining the consignment. provisions of Section 129(1)(b) would apply for obtaining a clearance of the goods and the vehicle.
Section 129 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit –Exempted Goods-- The petitioner challenged the detention of the consignment, while in transit on the ground of non-registration of the person making the interstate supply and the purchase bill issued by the petitioner was not a valid document for the purposes of supporting an interstate taxable supply. The petitioner submitted that while the consignor agriculturist is not required to take any registration in view of the express provisions of Section 23(1)(b) of the Act, he is also not required to take a compulsory registration under Section 24. The e-way bill indicated that the goods were exempted goods, being turmeric bulbs and turmeric, even if the respondents have a case that the goods have been wrongly classified, the same cannot be a reason for detaining the goods under Section 129. The court observed that the non-registration of the consignor, or the alleged mis-classification of the goods under transportation, cannot be a ground for detention under Section 129 of the Act. Since the transportation was not covered by a delivery challan, the respondents were justified in detaining the consignment.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed the respondents to release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner on the petitioner paying an amount of Rs. 25,000/-, as required in terms of Section 129(1)(b) read with Section 129(3). On the petitioner paying the said amount, the respondents shall forthwith release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner.
The non-registration of the consignor, or the alleged mis-classification of the goods under transportation, cannot be a ground for detention under Section 129 of the GST Act.
since the transportation of exempted goods was not covered by a delivery challan, the respondents were justified in detaining the consignment. provisions of Section 129(1)(b) would apply for obtaining a clearance of the goods and the vehicle.
Section 129 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit –Exempted Goods-- The petitioner challenged the detention of the consignment, while in transit on the ground of non-registration of the person making the interstate supply and the purchase bill issued by the petitioner was not a valid document for the purposes of supporting an interstate taxable supply. The petitioner submitted that while the consignor agriculturist is not required to take any registration in view of the express provisions of Section 23(1)(b) of the Act, he is also not required to take a compulsory registration under Section 24. The e-way bill indicated that the goods were exempted goods, being turmeric bulbs and turmeric, even if the respondents have a case that the goods have been wrongly classified, the same cannot be a reason for detaining the goods under Section 129. The court observed that the non-registration of the consignor, or the alleged mis-classification of the goods under transportation, cannot be a ground for detention under Section 129 of the Act. Since the transportation was not covered by a delivery challan, the respondents were justified in detaining the consignment.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed the respondents to release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner on the petitioner paying an amount of Rs. 25,000/-, as required in terms of Section 129(1)(b) read with Section 129(3). On the petitioner paying the said amount, the respondents shall forthwith release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner.