In the instant case, contention of petitioner is that since invoices were produced by the driver, the petitioners were entitled to be considered as owners of the goods with respect to said invoices and, therefore, for purpose of release of goods, the provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of CGST Act would apply and not provisions of Section 129(1)(b) thereof. The matter requires consideration.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit —–The petitioner challenged the order dated 30.9.2021, whereby the appellate authority while affirming the order dated 14.9.2021, passed under Section 129(3) of the Act, 2017, has upheld the imposition of tax and penalty. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that two invoices of petitioner No.1, four invoices of petitioner no.2 and five invoices of petitioner no.3 were produced by the Driver of the vehicle at the time of interception, as such, the petitioners were entitled to be considered as owners of the goods with respect to said invoices and the unilateral enhancement of the amount of the invoices by the authority is without any basis and is illegal. The court observed that the matter requires consideration. The Counsel for respondent prayed for and is granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court listed the matter afterwards and directed that the goods of petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall be released subject to payment of tax and penalty, in respect of their invoices that were produced by the driver of the vehicle at the time of interception. On payment of the tax and penalty, the seized vehicle of petitioner no.4 shall be released.
In the instant case, contention of petitioner is that since invoices were produced by the driver, the petitioners were entitled to be considered as owners of the goods with respect to said invoices and, therefore, for purpose of release of goods, the provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of CGST Act would apply and not provisions of Section 129(1)(b) thereof. The matter requires consideration.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit —–The petitioner challenged the order dated 30.9.2021, whereby the appellate authority while affirming the order dated 14.9.2021, passed under Section 129(3) of the Act, 2017, has upheld the imposition of tax and penalty. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that two invoices of petitioner No.1, four invoices of petitioner no.2 and five invoices of petitioner no.3 were produced by the Driver of the vehicle at the time of interception, as such, the petitioners were entitled to be considered as owners of the goods with respect to said invoices and the unilateral enhancement of the amount of the invoices by the authority is without any basis and is illegal. The court observed that the matter requires consideration. The Counsel for respondent prayed for and is granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court listed the matter afterwards and directed that the goods of petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall be released subject to payment of tax and penalty, in respect of their invoices that were produced by the driver of the vehicle at the time of interception. On payment of the tax and penalty, the seized vehicle of petitioner no.4 shall be released.