Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit — The petitioner challenged the order dated 17.10.2018 passed under Section 129 as well as the order dated 31.10.2020 passed by the respondent no.4 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner hired a transporter and Part-A of the e-way bill was generated. The petitioner paid the tax, however, on account of an inadvertence Part-B of the e-way bill was not generated prior to the commencement of the transport of goods. However, before the goods were actually seized, the eway bill was generated at about 7.34 am in the morning on 25.09.2018. The respondent vide order imposed a tax liability and levied an equal penalty. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that no proceedings for determination of the penalty or for determination of the tax outstanding have been initiated either under section 73 or 74 of the Act or under section 122. The court observed that the department has proceeded to determine the tax liability as well as penalty only under the provisions of section 129 of the Act, which is not contemplated or intended. There is no provision under section 129 for determination of tax due, which can be done only by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 73 or 74 of the Act. The proceedings have been initiated and concluded only under section 129 and the owner of the goods has not come forward for payment of such penalty, therefore, the order passed on 17.10.2018 and as upheld by the order dated 31.10.2020 are not legally sustainable.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the orders and directed that the amount paid by the petitioner for release of the goods shall be refunded to the petitioner with all expedition preferably within a period of two months.