In the instant case goods being transported were intercepted on 19.2.2018, when there was no system of e-way bill in place under C.G.S.T. Act 2017 and U.P.G.S.T. was not applicable. Order passed by the by the Addl. Commissioner under section section 129(3) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017 are hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount deposited by the petitioners as tax and penalty under the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Goods in Transit --The applicant challenged the order dated 30.3.2019 passed by the appellate authority and order passed under section 129(3) of the Act 2017. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the relevant time there was no system of e-way bill and all other relevant documents were being carried. The court observed that the deficiency pointed in order under section 129(3) is absence of e-way bill. Thus the reason is without any factual and legal basis. The goods were being transported alongwith the taxinvoice etc., therefore, it was not a fraudulent transaction and there is nothing on record to show otherwise. The e-way bill system was from 1.4.2018. In the instant case goods being transported were intercepted on 19.2.2018, when there was no system of e-way bill in place under C.G.S.T. Act 2017
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court quashed the judgment dated 13.3.2019 and the order dated 26.2.2018. Further directed the respondent to refund the amount deposited by the petitioners as tax and penalty within two months.
In the instant case goods being transported were intercepted on 19.2.2018, when there was no system of e-way bill in place under C.G.S.T. Act 2017 and U.P.G.S.T. was not applicable. Order passed by the by the Addl. Commissioner under section section 129(3) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017 are hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount deposited by the petitioners as tax and penalty under the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Goods in Transit --The applicant challenged the order dated 30.3.2019 passed by the appellate authority and order passed under section 129(3) of the Act 2017. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the relevant time there was no system of e-way bill and all other relevant documents were being carried. The court observed that the deficiency pointed in order under section 129(3) is absence of e-way bill. Thus the reason is without any factual and legal basis. The goods were being transported alongwith the taxinvoice etc., therefore, it was not a fraudulent transaction and there is nothing on record to show otherwise. The e-way bill system was from 1.4.2018. In the instant case goods being transported were intercepted on 19.2.2018, when there was no system of e-way bill in place under C.G.S.T. Act 2017
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court quashed the judgment dated 13.3.2019 and the order dated 26.2.2018. Further directed the respondent to refund the amount deposited by the petitioners as tax and penalty within two months.