The present writ petitions are not maintainable as an efficacious remedy of appeal is available.
Section 129 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit –-- The petitioner’s vehicles on 19.08.2020 and on 08.09.2020 were intercepted and detained the goods under Section 129 (3). The petitioner submitted that it is not incumbent upon transporter to comply with the part B of the e-way bills in respect of consignment less than Rs.50,000/-. Explanation 2 to Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 138 specifies that the consignments of value of goods shall be the value, declared in an invoice, bill of supply or a delivery challan. So when there were two invoices it constituted two consignments. Thus the entire exercise on behalf of the respondents intercepting the vehicle and goods is without jurisdiction much less illegal and prayed that the detention orders under Section 129(3), are liable to be quashed and also sought for release of the goods in accordance with law. The respondent submitted that the petitions are not maintainable as an efficacious remedy of appeal is available. The court observed that the orders under challenge are appealable as per the provisions of Section 107.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition.
The present writ petitions are not maintainable as an efficacious remedy of appeal is available.
Section 129 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit –-- The petitioner’s vehicles on 19.08.2020 and on 08.09.2020 were intercepted and detained the goods under Section 129 (3). The petitioner submitted that it is not incumbent upon transporter to comply with the part B of the e-way bills in respect of consignment less than Rs.50,000/-. Explanation 2 to Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 138 specifies that the consignments of value of goods shall be the value, declared in an invoice, bill of supply or a delivery challan. So when there were two invoices it constituted two consignments. Thus the entire exercise on behalf of the respondents intercepting the vehicle and goods is without jurisdiction much less illegal and prayed that the detention orders under Section 129(3), are liable to be quashed and also sought for release of the goods in accordance with law. The respondent submitted that the petitions are not maintainable as an efficacious remedy of appeal is available. The court observed that the orders under challenge are appealable as per the provisions of Section 107.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition.