Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the detained goods were liable to be released under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, or whether the authorities were justified in proceeding under Section 129(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Analysis: The writ petition was confined to the proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act. The factual matrix and the controversy were found to be materially similar to an earlier decision of the same Court on the same issue. The Court accepted the petitioner's case that the goods owner's claim attracted Section 129(1)(a) and that the impugned computation under Section 129(1)(b) could not be sustained on the facts.
Conclusion: The goods were directed to be released under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act read with the IGST Act, and the impugned order dated 29 July 2024 was quashed.