9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 207 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Release of detained goods alongwith vehicle - mistake on the part of the transporter in filing of the part B with reference to the E-Way bill - HELD THAT - The petitioner submits that the issue regarding the legality of the penalty requires to be considered. This issue has to be assailed by the petitioner by way of the statutory appeal provided to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. This writ petition is consequently disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to invoke the appropriate remedy by way of the statutory appeal before the competent authority - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Detention of consignment due to missing part B of E-Way bill. 2. Petitioner's plea for release of consignment. 3. Legality of penalty imposed. Analysis: 1. The petitioner's firm purchased a consignment of nuts and bolts from a supplier in Ludhiana. The goods were being transported to Jammu when the truck was intercepted at Lakhanpur for not having part B of the E-Way bill with the goods. Subsequently, an order of detention was issued under relevant tax laws. 2. The petitioner sought the release of the detained consignment through a writ petition, claiming it was a mistake by the transporter in filing the E-Way bill. After a hearing, the court directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the penalty and provide a bank guarantee for the remaining amount to secure the release of the consignment, which was complied with by the petitioner. 3. The court, after noting the compliance with the order and release of the goods, disposed of the writ petition. However, the legality of the penalty imposed was raised by the petitioner's counsel. The court clarified that such issues should be challenged through the statutory appeal process under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue the appropriate remedy within the specified timeframe. In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to appeal the penalty through statutory channels while emphasizing that the judgment did not express any opinion on the case's merits. The court also ensured that the appeal would not be rejected based on the limitation period if filed within four weeks. Additional applications related to the writ petition were deemed unnecessary and disposed of accordingly.
|
