9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods, fails to pay the amount of tax and penalty as provided in sub-Section (1) within 14 days of such detention or seizure, further proceedings shall be initiated in accordance with the provisions of Section 130. This would undoubtedly indicate action not only against the goods, but also against the transporter. The non-obstante clause in Section 129 indicate that neither Section 126, nor the general provision of penalty under Section 125, or Section 122 would apply in cases where Section 129 is attracted. The learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the Writ Petition refusing to find any infirmity in Exts.P5 to P7 notices - petitions dismissed. - WA. No. 253 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 4-2-2019 - MR K. VINOD CHANDRAN AND MR ASHOK M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition. Vide the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2018, the Writ Petition was dismissed holding that the provisions under Section 129(1)(b) applies to the transporter as person interested in the goods and therefore, Exts.P5 to P7 notices of detention do not suffer from any legal infirmity calling for interference. 4. We have heard Smt.S.Sujini, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and Sri.Mohammed Rafiq, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue. 5. It is submitted by Smt.Sujini that even admittedly, there is no case of tax evasion made out. The invoices were all in order and the only infraction was non-filling of Part-B of the e-way bill. The learned counsel draw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods' for the purpose of Section 129(1) of the CGST Act would be either the consignor or the consignee, if the invoice or other specified document is accompanying the consignment of goods. According to the learned counsel, in the instant case, the consignment was with all accompanying documents pertaining to the sale and therefore, the transporter could not be mulcted with liability to pay tax and penalty as per Ext.P7. 6. Sri.Mohammed Rafiq, learned Senior Government Pleader would contend that infraction of Section 129 would be liable for penalty as stated therein irrespective of whatever is stated in any other provision in the Act, because Section 129 is a self contained code by itself as the Section starts with a non-obstante clau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f release of goods ordered as provided under sub-Section (1) or order passed under sub-Section (3) of Section 129 of the CGST Act was raised, and it was held by us as thus:- The finding that the transaction would not fall within the scope of taxable supply under the statute, cannot be sustained for reason of there being no declaration made under R.138. The resultant finding that mere infraction of the procedural rules cannot result in detention of goods though they may result in imposition of penalty cannot also be sustained. If the conditions under the Act and Rules are not complied with, definitely S.129 operates and confiscation would be attracted. The learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the Writ Petition refusing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
