TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court orders release of goods on bank guarantee; emphasizes compliance with e-way bill regulations</h1> <h3>The Industrial and Laboratory Equipment Co. Versus The Assistant State Tax Officer, The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), State Goods And Services Tax Department, Tax, The Commissioner Of State Taxes,</h3> The Industrial and Laboratory Equipment Co. Versus The Assistant State Tax Officer, The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), State Goods And Services Tax ... Issues:1. Detention of goods due to non-filling of Part B of e-way bill.2. Allegation of tax evasion and demand for tax and penalty.3. Interpretation of minor breach under Section 126(1) of the State GST Act.4. Release of detained goods and vehicle.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a registered person under the GST Act, purchased goods but faced detention as the transporter failed to fill Part B of the e-way bill. Despite explanations, the 1st respondent issued orders of detention and notice under section 129(3) of the SGST Act, alleging tax evasion. The petitioner sought the release of goods without security under section 129(1)(c).2. The Government Pleader argued that the default was not a minor breach as the tax and penalty amount totaled &8377;66,528, exceeding the &8377;5000 threshold for minor breaches. Emphasizing the importance of Part B of the e-way bill, the Government Pleader contended that the breach was significant under the GST Act provisions.3. The Court, after evaluating the arguments, directed the 1st respondent to release the detained goods and vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the total amount of &8377;66,528. It further ordered the finalization of adjudicated proceedings within four weeks, ensuring a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to be heard through authorized officers or counsel.4. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with e-way bill requirements and the need for proper adjudication processes. By balancing the interests of the petitioner and tax enforcement, the Court provided a solution that allowed the release of goods while ensuring the tax-related issues were addressed through due process.
TaxTMI 