Detention and penalty under GST remitted for fresh review where movement of the vehicle before interception was disputed.

The dispute concerned whether detention and penalty could be sustained under the CGST Act where the key factual issue was whether the vehicle had actually commenced movement before interception. The Calcutta HC noted that the appellate authority had not fully examined the conflicting material on the timing of interception, the e-way bill, and the parking receipt. Because these factual questions were central to the applicability of Sections 68 and 129 and had not been addressed in appeal, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing all interested parties and reviewing the relevant documents. The appellate authority was directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate order upholding detention and penalty required interference and remand for fresh consideration on the question whether the vehicle had commenced movement at the time of interception, so as to attract Sections 68 and 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The disputed factual questions, including whether the vehicle was still parked for loading or had actually commenced transportation, were not fully considered by the appellate authority. The record showed conflicting positions on the timing of interception, the generation of the e-way bill, and the supporting parking receipt. Since these matters were raised before the Court and had not been dealt with in the appeal, the proper course was to remit the matter for reconsideration by the appellate authority after hearing all interested parties and examining the relevant documents.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh decision in accordance with law after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---