9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 94 - HC - GSTDetention of goods along with vehicle - undervaluation of goods due to heavy discount - alleged discrepancy noticed in respect of the Eway bill raised in connection with Ext.P1 invoice - section 129 of CGST/SGST Act - HELD THAT - The reasons shown in Exts.P8 and P11 notices, that are impugned in this writ petition, are not sufficient for the purposes of detaining the goods in terms of Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act - the 1st respondent is directed to forthwith release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner on the petitioner producing a copy of this judgment before the said respondent - petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
Challenge to detention notices (Ext.P8 and P11) for goods transported by the petitioner due to alleged discrepancies in E-way bill and undervaluation of commodity. Analysis: The judgment by the Honorable Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar addresses the challenge in the writ petition regarding the detention notices (Ext.P8 and P11) issued to the petitioner for goods transported at her instance. The notices indicated that the goods, covered by specific invoices, were detained due to a perceived discrepancy in the E-way bill related to the value of the commodity. The discrepancy highlighted was the difference in the value of the commodity as shown in the invoice and the E-way bill. The detaining authority alleged that the commodity was undervalued due to excessive discounts offered by the vendor to the purchaser. Upon hearing the arguments from both the petitioner's counsel and the Government Pleader representing the respondents, the judge examined the facts and submissions. It was observed that the reasons provided in the impugned notices (Ext.P8 and P11) were deemed insufficient under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act to justify the detention of the goods. Consequently, the 1st respondent was directed to release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner upon her presentation of a copy of the judgment. Additionally, the 1st respondent was instructed to forward the files for adjudication to the adjudicating authority following the release of the goods. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the directive for the immediate release of the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner upon compliance with the judgment.
|
