9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings dated 06.03.2019 of the respondent No.2 in MOV-07 inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to refund the penalty of Rs. 1,71,360/-. 3. The petitioner is the dealer and supplier of essential oils, perfumery compounds and aromatic chemicals having establishments at Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District and also at Mumbai in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ru to Mysore was without E-way bill. The petitioner, requested the respondents to release the seized goods and tried to explain that there was no deliberate mistake in respect of place of the delivery and the error was in GSTN and not on the part of the petitioner. However, rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner, order has been passed by the respondent under Section 129 of the Act. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the petitioner has paid the penalty determined by the respondents and the goods were released to the petitioner. If that being the position, there is no inhibition for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of statutory appeal provided under the Act for redressal of his grievance as the contentions raised by the petitioner revolves around the factual aspects of the case. 8. In such ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
