The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned notice which has been issued on the ground that the petitioner had admittedly transferred goods without the goods accompanying E-way Bill. This court finds that the respondent have only issued a notice proposing to impose penalty and tax. It is open to the petitioner to explain the same before the respondents. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to participate in the said proceeding by filing a reply to the notice.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 –– Goods in Transit –––The petitioner challenged the impugned notice dated 24.01.2019, which has been issued on the ground that the petitioner had admittedly transferred goods without the goods accompanying E-way Bill. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the E-way bill was generated post facto after the lorry was seized. Therefore there was no evasion of tax. The respondents have wrongly issued the notice contrary to Sections 122 (1) of the Act. The court observed that the respondent have only issued a notice proposing to impose penalty and tax. It is open to the petitioner to explain the same before the respondents. There is no merit in the present writ petition.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to participate in the said proceeding by filing a reply to the impugned notice within a period of 30 days. The respondent shall pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 30 days thereafter.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned notice which has been issued on the ground that the petitioner had admittedly transferred goods without the goods accompanying E-way Bill. This court finds that the respondent have only issued a notice proposing to impose penalty and tax. It is open to the petitioner to explain the same before the respondents. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to participate in the said proceeding by filing a reply to the notice.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 –– Goods in Transit –––The petitioner challenged the impugned notice dated 24.01.2019, which has been issued on the ground that the petitioner had admittedly transferred goods without the goods accompanying E-way Bill. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the E-way bill was generated post facto after the lorry was seized. Therefore there was no evasion of tax. The respondents have wrongly issued the notice contrary to Sections 122 (1) of the Act. The court observed that the respondent have only issued a notice proposing to impose penalty and tax. It is open to the petitioner to explain the same before the respondents. There is no merit in the present writ petition.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to participate in the said proceeding by filing a reply to the impugned notice within a period of 30 days. The respondent shall pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 30 days thereafter.