Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit — The petitioner challenged the order of Appeal dated 30.4.2022. The respondent vide order dated 1.3.2002 imposed penalty, which was duly deposited by the petitioner and the truck along with goods were released on 1.3.2022. The petitioner preferred Appeal, which was rejected vide order dated 30.4.2022. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the goods sold were on the basis of number of pieces and not according to the weight. It was old and damaged batteries which the petitioner had purchased only by pieces and not by weight, and was further sold according to battery per piece. The court observed that the Adjudicating Authority while passing the order has not recorded any finding as to how the explanation accorded by the petitioner cannot be accepted and the trade practice of purchase and sale of battery is according to weight and not per piece. Similarly, the First Appellate Authority has failed to record any finding as to how it has arrived to the conclusion that the trade practice required the battery to be sold is according to the weight and not per piece. Moreover, the description in the tax invoice, and consignment note also clearly mentions damaged batteries, large and small, which were being transported. Thus, the respondent had wrongly detained the truck along with the goods of the petitioner and imposed penalty and the adjudication order dated 1.3.2022 and the appellate order dated 30.4.2022 have no legs to stand as no reasoning has been accorded by either of the authorities in consonance with the law.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside both the orders dated 1.3.2022 and 30.4.2022.