Since the goods have been detained and has been lying under detention, the same can be released if the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee, for the amount demanded, , if the petitioner files an appeal within the time prescribed, the Bank Guarantee shall not be encashed till disposal of the appeal.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017— Goods in Transit -- The petitioner challenged an order issued under Section 129(3) of the Act on the ground that there was a violation of Rule 138 of the Rules, since the E-Way bill issue had expired few hours before the vehicle was detained. The petitioner submitted that the respondent while passing order had not taken into reckoning the objections filed by the petitioner and instead, acted mechanically. The respondent counsel submitted that under Section 107, the remedy is available to the petitioner. The court observed that the order is appealable under Section 107. Even though this Court can, in exceptional circumstances interfere with detention orders, this is not a fit case where this Court should interfere, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court disposing the petition directed to release the goods if the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee, for the amount demanded within one week. If the petitioner fails to file an appeal within the period prescribed under the law, the Bank Guarantee can be encashed. On the other hand, if the petitioner files an appeal within the time prescribed, the Bank Guarantee shall not be encashed till disposal of the appeal.
Since the goods have been detained and has been lying under detention, the same can be released if the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee, for the amount demanded, , if the petitioner files an appeal within the time prescribed, the Bank Guarantee shall not be encashed till disposal of the appeal.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017— Goods in Transit -- The petitioner challenged an order issued under Section 129(3) of the Act on the ground that there was a violation of Rule 138 of the Rules, since the E-Way bill issue had expired few hours before the vehicle was detained. The petitioner submitted that the respondent while passing order had not taken into reckoning the objections filed by the petitioner and instead, acted mechanically. The respondent counsel submitted that under Section 107, the remedy is available to the petitioner. The court observed that the order is appealable under Section 107. Even though this Court can, in exceptional circumstances interfere with detention orders, this is not a fit case where this Court should interfere, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court disposing the petition directed to release the goods if the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee, for the amount demanded within one week. If the petitioner fails to file an appeal within the period prescribed under the law, the Bank Guarantee can be encashed. On the other hand, if the petitioner files an appeal within the time prescribed, the Bank Guarantee shall not be encashed till disposal of the appeal.