9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 939 - HC - GSTDetention of conveyance alongwith the goods - the petitioner has already deposited the amount of tax and penalty - HELD THAT - Having regard to the fact that in connection with the detention of the conveyance as well as the goods contained therein, the petitioner has already deposited the amount of tax and penalty, by way of interim relief, the second respondent is directed to forthwith release the conveyance in question together with the goods contained therein, subject to the final outcome of the petition. Stand over to 20.11.2019.
Issues involved:
1. Amendment of petition 2. Confiscation of goods and conveyance under CGST Act 3. Deposit of tax and penalty 4. Release of conveyance and goods 5. Undertaking by petitioner 6. Next hearing date Amendment of petition: The petitioner's advocate tendered a draft amendment, which was allowed by the court. The court directed the immediate implementation of the amendment. Confiscation of goods and conveyance under CGST Act: The petitioner informed the second respondent about a court order, requesting an adjournment. However, the second respondent proceeded to pass an order of confiscation of goods and conveyance, demanding tax, fine, and penalty under section 130 of the CGST Act. The petitioner had already deposited the tax and penalty amount. Deposit of tax and penalty: The petitioner had already deposited the tax and penalty amount in connection with the detention of the conveyance and goods. Release of conveyance and goods: Considering that the petitioner had already paid the tax and penalty, the court directed the second respondent to release the conveyance and goods immediately, pending the final outcome of the petition. Undertaking by petitioner: The petitioner was directed to file an undertaking with the court, agreeing to pay any balance amount if the petition is unsuccessful, without waiving the right to challenge the confiscation order. Next hearing date: The case was adjourned to 20.11.2019, with direct service permitted.
|
