Latest GST Judgments

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library

The issue that arises for consideration in these writ petition is whether Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was adhered to by the respondents or not. Having passed the impugned order beyond the period of seven days from the date of service of notice on the petitioner which is contrary to Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, the impugned orders have to be necessarily quashed and the writ petitions will have to be allowed.

Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit –- The Petitioner challenged the detention order dated 31.10.2022 as well as the consequential order dated 10.11.2022, passed under Section 129. The court observed that after detaining the petitioner’s vehicle and the goods on 26.10.2022, notice was issued by the respondents on 31.10.2022 within seven days from the date of detention. However, the consequential order for payment of penalty was passed on 10.11.2022 which is beyond the period of seven days. The court relied upon the decision in the matter of Udhayam Steels Private Limited vs. Deputy Tax Officer (Int.) and another  dated 28.12.2022 and in the case of D.K. Enterprises vs. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner and another dated 29.08.2022.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the detention order dated 31.10.2022 as well as the impugned consequential order dated 10.11.2022 and directed the respondents to release the detained goods and conveyances within a period of one week.

Professional services available Audit Management
Tax Lok English Viedo
Tax Lok Hindi Viedo
Check Your Tax Knowledge
Youtube
HR Consulting services

FOR FREE CONDUCTED TOUR OF OUR ON-LINE LIBRARIES WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVE-- CLICK HERE

FOR ANY SUPPORT ON GST/INCOME TAX

Do You Want To Take FREE DEMO Of Our GST/Income Tax Library.