The order appears to have been passed ex-parte against the petitioner without consideration of his claim. The order is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner claim over the goods.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit —–The petitioner challenged the order dated 24.08.2021 passed under Section 129(3) of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the true owner of the goods that have been seized. SCN was issued on 17.08.2021. He deposited Rs. 1,37,232/- being amount equivalent to the tax payable on the goods detained and the penalty calculated at the rate equal to tax. The petitioner submitted that the respondent has grossly erred in reaching a conclusion that the detained goods were not traceable to any bona-fide owner. Therefore, the demand made under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act is stated to be wholly illegal. The court observed that order has been passed exparte. There is evidence that the petitioner (claiming as owner) has deposited the amount of Rs. 1,37,232/- on 23.08.2021
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the present writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 24.08.2021.
The order appears to have been passed ex-parte against the petitioner without consideration of his claim. The order is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner claim over the goods.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit —–The petitioner challenged the order dated 24.08.2021 passed under Section 129(3) of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the true owner of the goods that have been seized. SCN was issued on 17.08.2021. He deposited Rs. 1,37,232/- being amount equivalent to the tax payable on the goods detained and the penalty calculated at the rate equal to tax. The petitioner submitted that the respondent has grossly erred in reaching a conclusion that the detained goods were not traceable to any bona-fide owner. Therefore, the demand made under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act is stated to be wholly illegal. The court observed that order has been passed exparte. There is evidence that the petitioner (claiming as owner) has deposited the amount of Rs. 1,37,232/- on 23.08.2021
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the present writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 24.08.2021.