9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 643 - HC - GSTSeeking release of goods alongwith conveyance - absence of E-way bill - different destination was indicated in the invoice from what was mentioned by the driver - HELD THAT - It is directed that the goods of the petitioner as well as vehicle bearing registration KA 14C 3377, shall be released provided the petitioner complies with the conditions imposed - petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the validity of an order passed u/s 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the seizure of goods and conveyance u/s 129 of the Act, and the grant of interim relief for release of the goods and conveyance. Validity of Order u/s 130: The petitioner sought to set aside an order passed u/s 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, regarding the seizure of goods and conveyance. It was contended that the authorities first seized the goods u/s 129 of the Act and then invoked u/s 130 without providing the petitioner the benefits of release under u/s 129. The petitioner argued that this action was without jurisdiction as u/s 129 is independent of u/s 130. The petitioner also referenced previous cases where similar interim reliefs were granted by the court. Seizure u/s 129 of the Act: The goods and conveyance of the petitioner were seized by GST authorities while in transit under the powers granted u/s 129 of the Act. The petitioner contended that the authorities confiscated the goods without providing the benefits of release under u/s 129. The petitioner argued that the authorities did not follow the correct procedure by switching to u/s 130 without availing the petitioner the benefits under u/s 129. Grant of Interim Relief: The petitioner prayed for the release of the goods and conveyance and sought interim relief. The court directed the release of the goods and the vehicle under certain conditions, including the deposit of penalties and fines. The conditions also required the petitioner to provide an undertaking to cooperate in the adjudication proceedings. The court clarified that non-compliance with the conditions would result in the interim relief being vacated. The court permitted direct service and listed the petition with a previous application.
|
