The matter relates to goods being transported interstate from Punjab to Madhya Pradesh, and each of the invoices reflect payment of IGST and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that there was attempted evasion of tax. The contention is that the proceedings for confiscation are bad and are of harassment to the petitioner in carrying on its legitimate business. the case of the petitioner, prima facie, appears bonafide. The matter requires consideration.
Section 129, 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Goods in Transit --The petitioner challenged the order dated 07.10.2021 passed by the Appellate authority, whereby the order passed in MOV-11 under Section 130(2) of the Act has been upheld and the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of interception, some documents, including invoices of the goods that were being carried on in the conveyance, were produced before the intercepting authority. The remaining documents which were accepted by the respondent were submitted by the petitioner in its response to the SCN issued under Section 129(3) of the Act. The respondent Counsel did not dispute the fact that the invoices and other documents had been produced before the proper authority in response to the SCN. The court observed that from GST MOV-9, GST MOV-11 and the appellate order dated 07.10.2021, the case of the petitioner, prima facie, appears bonafide. The matter requires consideration.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court granted four week time to the respondent to file reply and directed that subject to the petitioner paying an amount in terms of the provisions of Section 130(2) of the Act on the basis of the amount disclosed in the invoices, and, subject to its furnishing security for the balance amount by way of a bond within a period of two weeks, the confiscated goods and conveyance shall be released.
The matter relates to goods being transported interstate from Punjab to Madhya Pradesh, and each of the invoices reflect payment of IGST and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that there was attempted evasion of tax. The contention is that the proceedings for confiscation are bad and are of harassment to the petitioner in carrying on its legitimate business. the case of the petitioner, prima facie, appears bonafide. The matter requires consideration.
Section 129, 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Goods in Transit --The petitioner challenged the order dated 07.10.2021 passed by the Appellate authority, whereby the order passed in MOV-11 under Section 130(2) of the Act has been upheld and the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of interception, some documents, including invoices of the goods that were being carried on in the conveyance, were produced before the intercepting authority. The remaining documents which were accepted by the respondent were submitted by the petitioner in its response to the SCN issued under Section 129(3) of the Act. The respondent Counsel did not dispute the fact that the invoices and other documents had been produced before the proper authority in response to the SCN. The court observed that from GST MOV-9, GST MOV-11 and the appellate order dated 07.10.2021, the case of the petitioner, prima facie, appears bonafide. The matter requires consideration.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court granted four week time to the respondent to file reply and directed that subject to the petitioner paying an amount in terms of the provisions of Section 130(2) of the Act on the basis of the amount disclosed in the invoices, and, subject to its furnishing security for the balance amount by way of a bond within a period of two weeks, the confiscated goods and conveyance shall be released.