Subject to the petitioner depositing 70% of the amount of tax, the goods and the vehicle shall be released forthwith.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017— Goods in Transit ---The petitioner submitted that he had earlier deposited a sum of Rs. 2,89,039/- comprising Rs. 2,75,275/- towards penalty and 10% of the tax amount being Rs. 13,764/- towards tax payable and despite the fact that the petitioner has further deposited a sum of Rs. 27,528/- under the order dated 1.2.2021, neither the petitioner's goods nor the vehicle has been released. The respondents are insisting on furnishing of security in the shape of a immovable property for the balance amount of tax (70%). The petitioner had produced the e-way bill and the tax invoice at the time of detention itself. Thus the petitioner claims that he is the owner of the goods and therefore the penalty amount cannot exceed the amount of tax. As against that the petitioner has already deposited twice the amount of tax towards penalty. The court observed that the interest of revenue is secure, in-as-much as sufficient amount has been deposited towards the penalty and also 30% of the tax amount is deposited. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to deposit the balance 70% of the amount of tax.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed that subject to the petitioner depositing 70% of the amount of tax, the goods and the vehicle shall be released forthwith.
Subject to the petitioner depositing 70% of the amount of tax, the goods and the vehicle shall be released forthwith.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017— Goods in Transit ---The petitioner submitted that he had earlier deposited a sum of Rs. 2,89,039/- comprising Rs. 2,75,275/- towards penalty and 10% of the tax amount being Rs. 13,764/- towards tax payable and despite the fact that the petitioner has further deposited a sum of Rs. 27,528/- under the order dated 1.2.2021, neither the petitioner's goods nor the vehicle has been released. The respondents are insisting on furnishing of security in the shape of a immovable property for the balance amount of tax (70%). The petitioner had produced the e-way bill and the tax invoice at the time of detention itself. Thus the petitioner claims that he is the owner of the goods and therefore the penalty amount cannot exceed the amount of tax. As against that the petitioner has already deposited twice the amount of tax towards penalty. The court observed that the interest of revenue is secure, in-as-much as sufficient amount has been deposited towards the penalty and also 30% of the tax amount is deposited. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to deposit the balance 70% of the amount of tax.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed that subject to the petitioner depositing 70% of the amount of tax, the goods and the vehicle shall be released forthwith.