Under section 129 of the Act, if a proper officer who is entrusted with the task of detaining goods, finds that they have been transported in contravention of the rules, he does not have the discretion to condone the procedural lapse or relax its rigour in particular cases.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017---Goods in Transit -- The petitioners transported the goods duly accompanied by valid invoices and e-way bills. The goods and the vehicles were detained by the respondents on the ground that the description and classification of the goods in the invoice was incorrect, attracting a different HSN classification and rate of tax. The petitioner furnished bonds and bank guarantees for the tax and penalty demanded in the notices in form GST MOV-7. The petitioner submitted that an alleged mis-classification of goods cannot be the basis for a detention under Section 129 of the Act. The court observed that a mere suspicion of mis-classification of goods cannot be the basis for a detention under Section 129 of the Act. It has to be borne in mind that Section 129 forms part of the machinery provisions under the Act to check evasion of tax and a detention can be justified only if there is a contravention of the provisions of the Act in relation to transportation of goods or their storage while in transit.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court held that that the alleged mis-classification cannot form the basis of a detention under Section 129 of the Act and accordingly quashed the impugned detention orders and notices,
Under section 129 of the Act, if a proper officer who is entrusted with the task of detaining goods, finds that they have been transported in contravention of the rules, he does not have the discretion to condone the procedural lapse or relax its rigour in particular cases.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017---Goods in Transit -- The petitioners transported the goods duly accompanied by valid invoices and e-way bills. The goods and the vehicles were detained by the respondents on the ground that the description and classification of the goods in the invoice was incorrect, attracting a different HSN classification and rate of tax. The petitioner furnished bonds and bank guarantees for the tax and penalty demanded in the notices in form GST MOV-7. The petitioner submitted that an alleged mis-classification of goods cannot be the basis for a detention under Section 129 of the Act. The court observed that a mere suspicion of mis-classification of goods cannot be the basis for a detention under Section 129 of the Act. It has to be borne in mind that Section 129 forms part of the machinery provisions under the Act to check evasion of tax and a detention can be justified only if there is a contravention of the provisions of the Act in relation to transportation of goods or their storage while in transit.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court held that that the alleged mis-classification cannot form the basis of a detention under Section 129 of the Act and accordingly quashed the impugned detention orders and notices,