As per records the petitioner has transported the goods in violation of Rule 138. The petitioner could not point out any error in the detention orders. This Court does not find any merit in the writ petition, and dismissed accordingly.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods In Transit —–The petitioner challenged the order dated 31.3.2021 passed in Appeal under Section 129 (3) of the Act as well as the order dated 30.1.2021 passed under Section 129 (3). The petitioner earlier approached the Court assailing the validity of the order dated 05.08.2020 passed in Appeal. The said petition was disposed of by quashing the order dated 31.8.2020 and the order dated 23.1.2020 with a liberty to the respondents to conclude proceedings against the petitioner. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the investigating officer issued a SCN and after being dissatisfied with the reply given in response of the SCN, the impugned order dated 30.1.2021 was passed under Section 129 (3) imposing tax and penalty. The said order was challenged in the Appeal and the same was rejected by the appellate authority. The counsel for the petitioner could not point out any error in the impugned orders and the Court did not find any merit in the writ petition.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition.
As per records the petitioner has transported the goods in violation of Rule 138. The petitioner could not point out any error in the detention orders. This Court does not find any merit in the writ petition, and dismissed accordingly.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods In Transit —–The petitioner challenged the order dated 31.3.2021 passed in Appeal under Section 129 (3) of the Act as well as the order dated 30.1.2021 passed under Section 129 (3). The petitioner earlier approached the Court assailing the validity of the order dated 05.08.2020 passed in Appeal. The said petition was disposed of by quashing the order dated 31.8.2020 and the order dated 23.1.2020 with a liberty to the respondents to conclude proceedings against the petitioner. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the investigating officer issued a SCN and after being dissatisfied with the reply given in response of the SCN, the impugned order dated 30.1.2021 was passed under Section 129 (3) imposing tax and penalty. The said order was challenged in the Appeal and the same was rejected by the appellate authority. The counsel for the petitioner could not point out any error in the impugned orders and the Court did not find any merit in the writ petition.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition.