Subject to the petitioner depositing tax and penalty the goods and vehicle may be released in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is liable to be treated as owner of the consignment in view of authorization letter.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit —–The petitioner challenged the order dated 9.4.2021 passed by appellate authority. While the consignment was in transit, the vehicle suffered a break down on 5.3.2021. The vehicle underwent repairs till 9.3.2021 and, thereafter, commenced its journey. The vehicle was detained by third respondent on 12.3.2021 on the ground that the EWay Bill had expired. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority against the order of the respondent, which, vide order dated 9.4.2021 was rejected. The petitioner counsel submitted that Section 129 (1) (a) of the Act would be attracted as the petitioner is liable to be treated as owner of the consignment and imposition of penalty under Section 129 (1) (b) of the Act is wholly illegal and unjustified. The petitioner is willing to deposit the amount of tax and penalty. The court observed that matter requires consideration.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed all the respondents four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Meanwhile, directed that subject to the petitioner depositing tax and penalty, within a period of two weeks, the goods and vehicle may be released in favour of the petitioner.
Subject to the petitioner depositing tax and penalty the goods and vehicle may be released in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is liable to be treated as owner of the consignment in view of authorization letter.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit —–The petitioner challenged the order dated 9.4.2021 passed by appellate authority. While the consignment was in transit, the vehicle suffered a break down on 5.3.2021. The vehicle underwent repairs till 9.3.2021 and, thereafter, commenced its journey. The vehicle was detained by third respondent on 12.3.2021 on the ground that the EWay Bill had expired. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority against the order of the respondent, which, vide order dated 9.4.2021 was rejected. The petitioner counsel submitted that Section 129 (1) (a) of the Act would be attracted as the petitioner is liable to be treated as owner of the consignment and imposition of penalty under Section 129 (1) (b) of the Act is wholly illegal and unjustified. The petitioner is willing to deposit the amount of tax and penalty. The court observed that matter requires consideration.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed all the respondents four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Meanwhile, directed that subject to the petitioner depositing tax and penalty, within a period of two weeks, the goods and vehicle may be released in favour of the petitioner.