Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit — The petitioner challenged the order dated 31.12.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the demand has been sustained. The impugned demand was raised against the petitioner on account of the fact that the e-way bill generated had expired. The court observed that against the subject goods, the tax stands paid, and that the impugned demand has been raised, for the reason that at the time of interception, the e-way bill was not valid. This is not a case where the petitioner intended to evade tax. However, the impugned demand seeks not only the payment of tax, but also penalty. The petitioner needs to be given another chance to establish, as to why the subject goods did not reach their designated designation before the expiry of the e-way bill.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned order dated 31.12.2021 and remanded the matter to respondent no. 2, to take a fresh decision in the matter, after giving the petitioner due opportunity to the petitioner. The concerned officer will also bear in mind, the provisions of section 126, which inter alia adverts to omission or mistake in documentation which is easily rectifiable.