This court affirm the judgment of the learned Single Judge which refused to interfere with order of detention and notice issued to the appellant under Section 129(3) of CGST Act. The appeal would stand dismissed, in limine.
Section 129 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit -- The appellant challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which refused to interfere with order of detention and notice issued to the appellant under Section 129(3). The learned Single Judge directed release of the goods and vehicle on furnishing Bank Guarantee for the amount demanded in the impugned notice. The reason for detention and issuance of notice was on the ground that that the validity of the e-way bill, accompanying the vehicle, had expired. The appellant submitted that third proviso to Rule 138(10), the validity of an e-way bill to be extended, within eight hours from the time of expiry. The expiry of the e-way bill is at 12.00 night of 05.11.2020 while the detention was just 1½ hours after that, i.e., at 1.30 a.m. on 06.11.2020. The court agreed with the submission of the respondent that this would only enable the consignee to update the e-way bill extending the period provided under the Table, within eight hours from the time of its expiry. There is no authority for the appellant to commence the transport without such extension being carried out within eight hours.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal.
This court affirm the judgment of the learned Single Judge which refused to interfere with order of detention and notice issued to the appellant under Section 129(3) of CGST Act. The appeal would stand dismissed, in limine.
Section 129 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit -- The appellant challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which refused to interfere with order of detention and notice issued to the appellant under Section 129(3). The learned Single Judge directed release of the goods and vehicle on furnishing Bank Guarantee for the amount demanded in the impugned notice. The reason for detention and issuance of notice was on the ground that that the validity of the e-way bill, accompanying the vehicle, had expired. The appellant submitted that third proviso to Rule 138(10), the validity of an e-way bill to be extended, within eight hours from the time of expiry. The expiry of the e-way bill is at 12.00 night of 05.11.2020 while the detention was just 1½ hours after that, i.e., at 1.30 a.m. on 06.11.2020. The court agreed with the submission of the respondent that this would only enable the consignee to update the e-way bill extending the period provided under the Table, within eight hours from the time of its expiry. There is no authority for the appellant to commence the transport without such extension being carried out within eight hours.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal.