Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Goods in Transit –- The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 11th January, 2021 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 29th September, 2021 whereby the petitioner’s prayer for refund of the tax paid for the second time and penalty amount has been rejected. The respondent counsel submitted that e-Way Bill was generated by the petitioner himself and the petitioner is responsible for any discrepancy or error that has been mentioned in the e-Way Bill. The petitioner did not carry a proper Way Bill.  The court observed that due to an unintentional error at the time of generating the e-Way Bill, the address from where the goods were dispatched was wrongly mentioned and accordingly, the goods were confiscated by the respondent authorities. A fresh e-Way Bill was generated immediately after interception. The petitioner had to pay tax for the second time and penalty for not carrying the proper Way Bill at the very first instance. From the conduct of the petitioner it does not appear that there was an intention to evade tax. The respondent authorities ought not to collect tax for second time in respect of the same goods. Law doesn’t require payment of tax to be made more than once in respect of the self same goods. The petitioner is entitled to the refund as prayed for.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority as well as the Appellate Authority and directed the Respondent to take steps for refund of the amount which was collected from the petitioner on account of tax for the second time and the penalty paid by him, within a period of four months.