Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>HC sets aside goods seizure orders under Section 129(1)(b) JGST Act for expired E-Way bill violations</h1> The HC set aside orders passed by the State Tax Officer and Appellate Authority regarding goods seizure under Section 129(1)(b) of JGST Act, 2017 for ... Violation of principles of natural justice - seeking release of goods - discrepancy of goods being transported - Expired E-Way bill - Section 129(1)(b) of JGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is true that neither the State Tax Officer nor Appellate Authority has examined the plea raised by the petitioner based on GPS tracking report of the vehicle. The impugned orders have been passed without taking into consideration the explanation and defence taken by the petitioner in their reply before the Tax Officer in response to the show-cause notice under GST MOV 07. The State Tax Officer has only taken into consideration one of the plea that the driver was illiterate/semi-literate and did not realize the consequences of expiry of e-way bill. The impugned order also does not reflect due consideration of plea taken by the petitioner based on GPS tracking report of the vehicle. The impugned orders therefore have been passed without proper application of mind and without dealing with the contention raised by the petitioner. It suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. The statements made at para-11 of the counter affidavit by the respondent regarding the mismatch in the quantity of goods with the Invoices are not substantiated by the physical verification report issued by the department in Form GST MOV- 04 (Annexure-7). The impugned action has entailed penalty without due consideration of the plea raised by the petitioner and without proper application of mind. As such, both the orders passed by the State Tax Officer (Annexure- 10) dated 12th July, 2018 and the appellate order dated 26th July, 2018 (Annexure-14) are set aside - the matter is remanded to the State Tax Officer to consider the plea raised by the petitioner in its reply and the plea based upon the amended Rule 138(3) of JGST Rules, 2017 brought into force with effect from 7th March, 2018 by notification dated 30th March, 2018, in accordance with law. Petition allowed by way of remand. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the penalty imposed under Section 129(1)(b) of CGST Act.2. Validity of seizure and detention of goods.3. Consideration of GPS tracking report and other evidences.4. Applicability of amended Rule 138(3) of JGST Rules, 2017.5. Allegation of mismatch in the quantity of goods with invoices.6. Violation of principles of natural justice.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Penalty Imposed Under Section 129(1)(b) of CGST Act:The petitioner challenged the penalty of Rs. 8,25,828/- imposed by the State Tax Officer under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act. The penalty was confirmed by the Joint Commissioner of State (Appeal), Jamshedpur Division. The penalty was imposed due to the expiry of the E-Way bill during the transportation of goods. It was argued that the penalty was imposed without proper verification of the facts and evidence provided by the petitioner, including the GPS report.2. Validity of Seizure and Detention of Goods:The petitioner sought a declaration that the entire exercise of seizure and detention of goods was illegal and without jurisdiction. The vehicle carrying goods was intercepted on 6th July 2018, and a show-cause notice was issued on 7th July 2018, alleging transportation without a valid E-Way bill. The petitioner contended that the goods had reached the destination within the validity period of the E-Way bill but were temporarily taken back due to space constraints at the warehouse.3. Consideration of GPS Tracking Report and Other Evidences:The petitioner provided a GPS tracking report showing that the vehicle had reached the ITC warehouse before the expiry of the E-Way bill and remained stationary at a nearby location due to space constraints. The State Tax Officer and the appellate authority failed to consider this evidence. The court noted that the impugned orders did not reflect due consideration of the GPS tracking report, which vitiated the orders on factual grounds.4. Applicability of Amended Rule 138(3) of JGST Rules, 2017:The petitioner argued that under the amended Rule 138(3) of JGST Rules, 2017, effective from 7th March 2018, an E-Way bill was not required for transportation within a distance of 50 Kms within the state. This amendment was not considered by the State Tax Officer or the appellate authority while imposing the penalty. The court directed the State Tax Officer to consider this plea in accordance with the law.5. Allegation of Mismatch in the Quantity of Goods with Invoices:The respondent's counter-affidavit alleged a mismatch between the quantity of goods and the invoices. However, the court found that this allegation was not substantiated by the physical verification report. The court noted that the physical verification report did not indicate any mismatch, thereby discrediting the respondent's contention.6. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:The court observed that the impugned orders were passed without proper application of mind and without addressing the contentions raised by the petitioner, including the GPS tracking report. This constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that the orders were issued without considering the petitioner's defense, leading to an unjust imposition of penalty.Conclusion:The court set aside the orders passed by the State Tax Officer and the appellate authority, citing a lack of proper consideration of evidence and violation of principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the State Tax Officer for reconsideration in light of the petitioner's pleas and the amended Rule 138(3) of JGST Rules, 2017. The court also directed the return of the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner if not encashed. The writ petition was allowed, and the court clarified that its observations should not prejudice the fresh decision by the State Tax Officer.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found