9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 916 - HC - GSTDetention of vehicle as well as goods - section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - detention on the ground that the lorry receipt issued by the transporter is photocopy without computerized serial number and contact number details - whether carrying Lorry Receipt issued by the transporter is not a requirement prescribed under rule 138A(1) of the rules? - Held that - Prima facie, the contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner appears to be valid. Under the circumstances, a prima facie case has been made out for grant of interim relief as prayed for in the petition. Stand over to 18th April, 2019.
Issues: Detention of goods and vehicle under section 129(1) of the CGST Act based on deficiencies in the lorry receipt issued by the transporter.
In the judgment delivered by the Gujarat High Court, the petitioner's advocate argued that the detention of the petitioner's vehicle and goods under section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was unjustified. The advocate pointed out that the order of detention was based on the lorry receipt issued by the transporter, which was considered deficient due to lacking a computerized serial number and contact details. The advocate referred to section 68 of the CGST Act, emphasizing the requirement for the person in charge of a conveyance to carry specific documents and devices as prescribed by rule 138A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. It was highlighted that the lorry receipt was not among the documents mandated by rule 138A(1) to be carried by the person in charge of the conveyance. The advocate argued that the absence of a statutory provision empowering detention based on deficiencies in the lorry receipt rendered the impugned detention order unauthorized by law. The High Court also heard the Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, who did not dispute the validity of the petitioner's contention. The Court observed that prima facie, the advocate's argument appeared valid, indicating that a case for interim relief was established. Consequently, the Court granted interim relief as requested in the petition and directed the respondents to release the truck along with its contents. The matter was adjourned to a later date for further proceedings, and direct service of the order was permitted for compliance.
|
