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>GST Proceedings Invalidated Due to Procedural Lapses in Detention Order Issuance Under Section 129(3)</h1> <h3>Madhesh @ Madesan Versus The State Tax Officer, (FAC), Krishnagiri</h3> HC ruled in favor of petitioner, invalidating GST proceedings due to procedural non-compliance. The court found violation of Section 129(3) timeline for ... Failure to adhere to the time lines - Whether the proceedings under Section 129(3) can be sustained in the absence of complying with the time line mandated under Section 129(3)? - HELD THAT:- Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in TVL. UDHAYAN STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SELVAN VERSUS DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER (INT.) ROVING SQUAD, COIMBATORE, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST), ADJUDICATION, COIMBATORE [2023 (1) TMI 378 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein this Court held that 'The impugned proceedings are set aside and the vehicles/goods in question shall be released forthwith.' This Court is of the view that the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside inasmuch as it is in contravention of the time lines stipulated in Section 129 of the Act. Consequently, vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-29-AB-7887 shall be released forthwith. Petition disposed off. In the case before the Madras High Court, presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, the petitioner challenged the validity of proceedings under Section 129(3) of the GST Act, 2017, specifically contesting GST MOV-02 and GST MOV-07 notices dated 29.10.2024. The petitioner argued that the failure to issue a detention order in Form GST MOV-09 within the mandated seven-day timeline from the issuance of the show cause notice constituted a 'gross violation' of Section 129(3). The petitioner relied on precedent from Tvl. Udhayan Steels Private Limited v. The Deputy State Tax Officer, where the court held that exceeding the seven-day timeline 'is fatal to the order,' resulting in the setting aside of proceedings and the release of detained goods.The court, referencing similar judgments in W.P.Nos. 476 of 2023 and 33851 of 2022, concurred with this reasoning. Consequently, the impugned proceedings were set aside, and the vehicle with Registration No. TN-29-AB-7887 was ordered to be released immediately. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
