9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alaji, it has mentioned as Tvl.TM Steel. But in address column, it has been clearly mentioned Tvl.T.Balaji address as Devapuram Road, Thoothukudi. Therefore, it can be considered as typographical error only. Moreover, it is not the mistake of Tvl.TM Steel, it is the mistake committed by M/s.Rashmi. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent has not passed order with 7 days from the date of service of such notice. It is seen that the respondent intercepted the consignment on 24.07.2023 and issued a detention order on 24.07.2023, the petitioner had filed a reply on 27.07.2023. But till 31.07.2023 the respondent had not passed any order, the respondent ought to have passed an order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir E-invoice No.702923010344 dated 20.07.2023 along with E-way Bill No.811329404105 dated 20.07.2023 for the supply of said goods. The contention of the petitioner is that while preparing invoices, the said M/s.Rashmi had committed a typographical error in the column of both Billed To and Shipped To by mentioning Tvl.T.M.Steel. In other words the said M/s.Rashmi ought to have mentioned Tvl.T.Balaji in the Shipped To , but in this column also it has mentioned Tvl.T.M.Steel. Moreover, the said M/s.Rashmi has not mentioned Tvl.T.Balaji GST number. The mistake is committed by the said M/s.Rashmi, but the respondent herein has penalized the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and issued a detention order on 24.07.2023, the petitioner had filed a reply on 27.07.2023. But till 31.07.2023 the respondent had not passed any order, the respondent ought to have passed an order on or before 31.07.2023. Even the respondent had not passed any order when this order is passed today. Under Section 129(3) of the Act, the order ought to be passed within 7 days from the date of serve of such notice. Since there is clear violation of the provisions of the Act and hence the detention of goods is against the provisions. Therefore, this Court is inclined to pass a following directions: (i) The petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as penalty to the respondent. On such payment, the respondent shall re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
