Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
The HC dismissed the petition challenging action under s.129(3) CGST Act, upholding detention and seizure of goods sent for job work. The court found that at interception there was no requisite delivery challan accompanying the consignment and documentary proof was lacking, although an e-way bill was produced prior to the seizure order. Applying its prior authority, the HC concluded the enforcement action was not illegal or arbitrary where statutory documentation was absent at the time of movement. Consequently the impugned orders were affirmed and no interference was warranted with the revenue authorities' proceedings; the petition is dismissed.
The HC dismissed the petition challenging action under s.129(3) CGST Act, upholding detention and seizure of goods sent for job work. The court found that at interception there was no requisite delivery challan accompanying the consignment and documentary proof was lacking, although an e-way bill was produced prior to the seizure order. Applying its prior authority, the HC concluded the enforcement action was not illegal or arbitrary where statutory documentation was absent at the time of movement. Consequently the impugned orders were affirmed and no interference was warranted with the revenue authorities' proceedings; the petition is dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.