9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner desires to have the interim release of the goods, there is no escape from Section 129. As with Section 74, it is evident that the provision concerns the assessment but not transport and its interception, much less the detention and the provisional release. Exts.P5 to P7 notices of detention do not suffer from any legal infirmity - petition dismissed. - WP (C). No. 35665 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 29-11-2018 - MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. For The Petitioner : ADV. SMT. S. SUJINI For The Respondent : DR THUSHARA JAMES, GP JUDGMENT The petitioner is a transporter. When it was transported goods for a consignor, the Assistant State Tax Officer ( ASTO ) intercepted those goods and detained them, along with the vehi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y attention to Section 129 (3) of the Act, Smt. Sujini contends that the provision does not refer to the transporter, who according to her, has no role to play in the entire scheme of the GST. 6. In the alternative, Smt. Sujini has submitted that the transaction is genuine and there is no possibility of, not even a doubt about, any tax evasion. In that context, Smt. Sujini has drawn my attention to Section 126 of the Act. According to her, Section 126 eminently exempts minor discrepancies. More particularly, when the discrepancy does not involve tax evasion, the detention under Section 129 is unwanted. Then, Smt. Sujini has referred to Section 74 of the Act and contended that the demand and recovery of tax must be based on fraud, willful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner carried an e-way bill, in which Part B remained unfilled. True, on earlier occasions, this Court has examined the issue; one such occasion is K. Karunakaran v. The Assistant State Tax Officer . Judgment, dt 9th August 2018, in WP (C) No.26986 of 2018 11. As rightly contended by Dr.James, Section 129 begins with a non-obstante clause and, perhaps, on that count it may be treated as a self-contained code on the provisional release of the goods. In this context, I may as well examine Section 126, which reads as follows: 126. General disciplines related to penalty ( 1) No officer under this Act shall impose any penalty for minor breaches of tax regulations or procedural requirements and in particular, any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fixed sum or expressed as a fixed percentage. 12. I reckon the petitioner may not insist on the provisional release of the goods, but contest the matter before the State Tax Officer. It may then invite an order under Section 129 and 130. Then, Perhaps, every plea including those provided under Section 126 may be available. But if the petitioner desires to have the interim release of the goods, there is no escape from Section 129. As with Section 74, it is evident that the provision concerns the assessment but not transport and its interception, much less the detention and the provisional release. So goes the observation on Section 122 as well. 13. Indeed, the petitioner's counsel has persistently pleaded that the petitioner is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
