The respondents shall release the vehicle and the goods upon the petitioner giving Bank guarantee
Section 129 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit – The petitioner challenged detention order and final order dated 09.12.2020 levying tax of Rs. 2,24,736/- and penalty of Rs. 10,23794/- submitting that there was some delay on part of the transporters in starting the outward journey. The department found that the E-Way bill had expired. The petitioner submitted that the authorities were aware that he was the owner of the goods, no notice was issued. He made representations before the said order. The respondent submitted that notice was served on the driver of the vehicle who was in charge of the goods. It was his duty to communicate the proceedings to the petitioner. In absence of valid E-Way bills the authority has held that the goods were meant for local sale and accordingly taxed the same and also levied penalty. The court observed that the petitioner did not have full opportunity to represent the case before the assessing officer.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court aside the order dated 09.12.2020. Further directed the petitioner to appear before the authority and file the objections within a period of two weeks. The assessing officer shall pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the representation. The respondents shall release the vehicle and the goods upon the petitioner giving Bank guarantee of 25% of the total sum and furnishing further Bank guarantee/immovable security for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the assessing officer.
The respondents shall release the vehicle and the goods upon the petitioner giving Bank guarantee
Section 129 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit – The petitioner challenged detention order and final order dated 09.12.2020 levying tax of Rs. 2,24,736/- and penalty of Rs. 10,23794/- submitting that there was some delay on part of the transporters in starting the outward journey. The department found that the E-Way bill had expired. The petitioner submitted that the authorities were aware that he was the owner of the goods, no notice was issued. He made representations before the said order. The respondent submitted that notice was served on the driver of the vehicle who was in charge of the goods. It was his duty to communicate the proceedings to the petitioner. In absence of valid E-Way bills the authority has held that the goods were meant for local sale and accordingly taxed the same and also levied penalty. The court observed that the petitioner did not have full opportunity to represent the case before the assessing officer.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court aside the order dated 09.12.2020. Further directed the petitioner to appear before the authority and file the objections within a period of two weeks. The assessing officer shall pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the representation. The respondents shall release the vehicle and the goods upon the petitioner giving Bank guarantee of 25% of the total sum and furnishing further Bank guarantee/immovable security for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the assessing officer.