In the instant case, contention of petitioner against the seizure order is that invoice and bilty were produced by the driver, however, in the e-way bill, due to a bonafide clerical inadvertence; the vehicle number was not mentioned. It is contended that there was no intention to evade tax at all. Matter requires consideration.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Goods in Transit --The petitioner challenged the order in Form GST MOV-9 dated 24.9.202. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that on interception of the vehicle, the invoice and bilty were produced by the driver, however, in the e-way bill, due to a bonafide clerical inadvertence, the vehicle number was not mentioned. There was no intention to evade tax at all. The respondent counsel submitted that under the provisions of sub-section (8) of Section 112 of the d Act, a pre-deposit of 20% of the amount is required to be made for maintainability of the appeal. The petitioner counsel submitted that the entire amount of tax so assessed in the aforesaid order under Section 129(3) of the Act, has been paid in full. The court observed that matter requires consideration.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court granted three weeks time to the respondents to file counter affidavit and directed to list thereafter.
In the instant case, contention of petitioner against the seizure order is that invoice and bilty were produced by the driver, however, in the e-way bill, due to a bonafide clerical inadvertence; the vehicle number was not mentioned. It is contended that there was no intention to evade tax at all. Matter requires consideration.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Goods in Transit --The petitioner challenged the order in Form GST MOV-9 dated 24.9.202. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that on interception of the vehicle, the invoice and bilty were produced by the driver, however, in the e-way bill, due to a bonafide clerical inadvertence, the vehicle number was not mentioned. There was no intention to evade tax at all. The respondent counsel submitted that under the provisions of sub-section (8) of Section 112 of the d Act, a pre-deposit of 20% of the amount is required to be made for maintainability of the appeal. The petitioner counsel submitted that the entire amount of tax so assessed in the aforesaid order under Section 129(3) of the Act, has been paid in full. The court observed that matter requires consideration.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court granted three weeks time to the respondents to file counter affidavit and directed to list thereafter.