There was some confusion to the authority concerned thought fit to detain the goods under Section 129 of the Act. However, after thorough inquiry, the authority itself has come to the conclusion that it is no longer necessary to detain the goods and the vehicle.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017- Goods in Transit – The applicant prayed for direction quashing the detention order and notice dated 29.11.2020 passed under Section 129(1) of the Act; directing the respondents to release truck along with goods. The applicant submitted that the respondents detained goods on 29.11.2020 on the ground that there is some mismatch between the invoice and the e-way bill. The applicant counsel submitted that at the time of detention itself, he explained the authorities that the transaction was a "Bill to ship to" and the same has been mentioned in the e-way bill itself. The respondent counsel submitted that there has been no contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. As there was some confusion, the authority concerned thought fit to detain the goods under Section 129 of the Act. However, after thorough inquiry, the authority itself has come to the conclusion that it is no longer necessary to detain the goods and the vehicle.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ application. Further directed the respondent to release the goods as well as the vehicle at the earliest.
There was some confusion to the authority concerned thought fit to detain the goods under Section 129 of the Act. However, after thorough inquiry, the authority itself has come to the conclusion that it is no longer necessary to detain the goods and the vehicle.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017- Goods in Transit – The applicant prayed for direction quashing the detention order and notice dated 29.11.2020 passed under Section 129(1) of the Act; directing the respondents to release truck along with goods. The applicant submitted that the respondents detained goods on 29.11.2020 on the ground that there is some mismatch between the invoice and the e-way bill. The applicant counsel submitted that at the time of detention itself, he explained the authorities that the transaction was a "Bill to ship to" and the same has been mentioned in the e-way bill itself. The respondent counsel submitted that there has been no contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. As there was some confusion, the authority concerned thought fit to detain the goods under Section 129 of the Act. However, after thorough inquiry, the authority itself has come to the conclusion that it is no longer necessary to detain the goods and the vehicle.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ application. Further directed the respondent to release the goods as well as the vehicle at the earliest.