Court orders respondents to file counter affidavit, grants time. Goods & vehicle release upon petitioner depositing tax & penalty.

The Court directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit and granted time for the same. Subject to the petitioner depositing tax and penalty, the goods and vehicle were to be released. The petitioner was instructed to provide a self-attested copy of the order, verified by the concerned authority, for release.

---

---

Issues:
Validity of order under IGST Act and CGST Act, detention of goods and vehicle, rejection of appeal, authorization by corporate entity, legal errors in judgment, imposition of tax and penalty, absence of appellate tribunal.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order passed under the IGST Act and CGST Act, seeking release of detained goods and vehicle. The consignment involved steel items transported from Odisha to Haryana, facing a breakdown in Jharkhand. Despite repairs and a delayed journey, the vehicle was detained in Kanpur due to an expired EWay Bill. The petitioner responded to the show cause notice, emphasizing no discrepancy in the consignment. The appeal was rejected, upholding the detention.

In the appeal, the petitioner argued that Section 129(1) of the Act was inapplicable, supported by the consignor's authorization to take custody. The rejection of appeal was contested, highlighting errors in requiring additional documentation for authorization. The petitioner criticized the appellate authority for not adequately addressing legal precedents and misapplying judgments.

Furthermore, it was contended that Section 129(1)(a) applied to the petitioner as the consignment's owner per the authorization from M/s Tata Steel Ltd. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay tax and penalty. Additionally, the absence of an appellate tribunal in Uttar Pradesh was raised as a concern.

The Court directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit and granted time for the same. Subject to the petitioner depositing tax and penalty, the goods and vehicle were to be released. The petitioner was instructed to provide a self-attested copy of the order, verified by the concerned authority, for release.

---