Since Section 129 of the CGST Act does not contemplate distinction between inadvertent and advertent error, therefore, authorities were right in invoking Section 129 of the CGST Act against the petitioner. No illegality or perversity has been pointed out by the petitioner to the extent where this Court would have invoked the jurisdiction.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit –--The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 28-11-2020 and order dated 2-07-2019. The petitioner was required to supply the goods to unit in MP but inadvertently and erroneously generated the Tax Invoice in the name of unit registered at UP. The respondent detained the goods as well as vehicle on the ground that place of supply mentioned in the E-way bill is different from the actual place of receiver. The petitioner preferred appeal under Section 107 but the same was rejected on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. The court observed that the Petitioner through pleadings and submissions raised the point on merits also but since all those points have been duly considered by the authorities, then scope of interference restricts under the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India. No illegality or perversity has been pointed out by the petitioner to the extent where this Court would have invoked the jurisdiction.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition.
Since Section 129 of the CGST Act does not contemplate distinction between inadvertent and advertent error, therefore, authorities were right in invoking Section 129 of the CGST Act against the petitioner. No illegality or perversity has been pointed out by the petitioner to the extent where this Court would have invoked the jurisdiction.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit –--The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 28-11-2020 and order dated 2-07-2019. The petitioner was required to supply the goods to unit in MP but inadvertently and erroneously generated the Tax Invoice in the name of unit registered at UP. The respondent detained the goods as well as vehicle on the ground that place of supply mentioned in the E-way bill is different from the actual place of receiver. The petitioner preferred appeal under Section 107 but the same was rejected on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. The court observed that the Petitioner through pleadings and submissions raised the point on merits also but since all those points have been duly considered by the authorities, then scope of interference restricts under the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India. No illegality or perversity has been pointed out by the petitioner to the extent where this Court would have invoked the jurisdiction.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition.