The provisions of tax and penalty under the SGST Act are not attracted to the inter-state transaction of exempted goods
Goods in transit- — Section 129 of CGST Act— This Review Petition has been filed by the State seeking to review the judgment which considered the legality of the detention of a consignment of goods during the course of interstate transportation, this Court had, taking note of the fact that the consignment was not covered by a valid delivery chalan that was one of the prescribed documents for transportation of exempted goods, found that the detention was justified.
In the Review Petition, it is the case of the State that, once it was found that the detention was justified, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to pay not only the amount of Rs. 25,000/- in terms of Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act but also a similar amount under Section 129(1)(b) of the SGST Act since the tax payment under the IGST Act included components of the tax payable under both the CGST and SGST Acts. It is for correcting the said alleged error that the judgment is sought to be reviewed.
Held that— In the case of an interstate transportation of exempted goods, the phrase used in Section 129 of the CGST Act that is mutatis mutandis made applicable to the IGST Act, is "payment of an amount equal to 5% of the value of goods or 25000 rupees whichever is less".
Petitioner cannot be further mulcted with a similar amount under the SGST Act since the provisions of tax and penalty under the SGST Act are not attracted to the inter-state transaction of exempted goods covered by the IGST Act. I, therefore, see no reason to review the judgment impugned in the Review Petition. The Review Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
The provisions of tax and penalty under the SGST Act are not attracted to the inter-state transaction of exempted goods
Goods in transit- — Section 129 of CGST Act— This Review Petition has been filed by the State seeking to review the judgment which considered the legality of the detention of a consignment of goods during the course of interstate transportation, this Court had, taking note of the fact that the consignment was not covered by a valid delivery chalan that was one of the prescribed documents for transportation of exempted goods, found that the detention was justified.
In the Review Petition, it is the case of the State that, once it was found that the detention was justified, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to pay not only the amount of Rs. 25,000/- in terms of Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act but also a similar amount under Section 129(1)(b) of the SGST Act since the tax payment under the IGST Act included components of the tax payable under both the CGST and SGST Acts. It is for correcting the said alleged error that the judgment is sought to be reviewed.
Held that— In the case of an interstate transportation of exempted goods, the phrase used in Section 129 of the CGST Act that is mutatis mutandis made applicable to the IGST Act, is "payment of an amount equal to 5% of the value of goods or 25000 rupees whichever is less".
Petitioner cannot be further mulcted with a similar amount under the SGST Act since the provisions of tax and penalty under the SGST Act are not attracted to the inter-state transaction of exempted goods covered by the IGST Act. I, therefore, see no reason to review the judgment impugned in the Review Petition. The Review Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.