Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit ––- The petitioner challenged the detention order under Section 129 and the appellate order, by which the appeal of petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner’s goods were found to carry goods at Jabalpur, whereas e-way bill generated showed destination at Indore. The court observed that strictly going by the terminology used in the immunity provision under Clause 5 of the circular dated 14.09.2018, the benefit flowing wherefrom may not be available to the petitioner but this Court hastens to add that in penal provision such as Section 129 , the element of intention to evade tax must be present to sustain an order of penalty. To gather the intention of the petitioner an inquiry has to be undertaken to ascertain whether the mistake was inadvertent with no element of malice or intention to evade tax. Either the Taxing Authority or the appellate authority has not undertaken the said exercise.

Held that:-The Hon’ble High Court partly allowed the petition and quashed the impugned appellate order dated 18.12.2019 and directed the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal solely on the question of presence or absence of any malafide intention to evade tax on the part of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within the outer limit of three months.