Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit —-- The appeal is directed against the order dated 4th August, 2022, whereby the learned Single Bench declined to grant any interim order in favour of the appellant. The challenge in the writ petition is to the order imposing 200% penalty on the ground that the appellant had violated the provisions of Rule 138. The court observed that the short issue is whether there was any intention on the part of the appellant to evade payment of duty. If the appellant is able to give a satisfactory explanation that there was no intention to evade payment of duty, nothing more is required to be done and the proceedings could be dropped. The Advocate for the appellant submitted that the conduct of the appellant in generating a fresh part B within two hours of detention would clearly show that there was no intention to evade payment of duty.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration on the aspect as to whether there was any wilful intention on the part of the appellant to evade payment of duty.