9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 97 - HC - GSTLevy of penalty u/s 129(3) of the GST Act - HELD THAT - The plea sought to be raised by the petitioner regarding the transfer of the goods a Pokland Machine to its parking yard at Varanasi needs investigation inasmuch as the conduct as projected by counsel for the respondents and which is not denied despite the fact that petitioner had full 15 days to claim the ownership of the goods no steps were taken and thereafter also the matter has been dealt with casually the assertions made in the petition cannot be taken at face value. There are no reason to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The same is therefore dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal with the aid of Section 14 of the Limitation Act as indicated by counsel for the respondents. Petition dismissed.
**Summary of Judgement: Allahabad High Court****Case:** Writ petition challenging the order under Section 129(3) of the GST Act imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,40,000.**Parties:**- **Petitioner:** Represented by Amit Shukla.- **Respondent:** Represented by Ankur Agarwal, S.C.**Key Facts:**1. The petitioner was penalized for moving goods without an e-way bill, claiming the goods were being transported to a parking yard due to non-payment by a borrower.2. The vehicle and goods were detained on 02.07.2024, and the penalty order was issued on 18.07.2024.3. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing the e-way bill was unnecessary as the goods were not being moved for sale or commercial purposes.**Legal Reasoning:**- The court noted that the petitioner's claim of ownership and the necessity of moving goods to a parking yard was not substantiated during the detention period.- The petitioner had 15 days to assert ownership but failed to do so, and the subsequent actions were deemed casual.- The court found no merit in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226, emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy through appeal.**Conclusion:**- The writ petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to pursue an appeal, potentially benefiting from Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to account for the time spent in court.
|
