9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .P.J.ANILKUMAR, G.MINI, SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD, JOB ABRAHAM AND SRI.AJAY V.ANAND RESPONDENT: SMT. THUSHARA JAMES; GP JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P8 order, by which the goods belonging to the petitioner, were detained by the 3rd respondent, and a tax and penal liability determined by the said respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detention of the goods. 2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reasons shown in Ext.P7 notice and Ext.P8 order cannot justify a detention of the goods under Section 129, since the said reasons are wholly extraneous to the requirements of the said Section. It is in particular, pointed out that the Eway bill clearly covered the transaction from Gujarat to Trivan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al circumstances narrated above, I am of the view that there was no justification for detention of the goods in terms of Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act. This is more so because the reasons stated in the detention order are wholly irrelevant for the purposes of S.129 of the Act. I therefore, direct the 3rd respondent to release the goods and vehicle to the petitioner, on the petitioner producing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
