https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371297 In detention proceedings under Section 129 of the IGST Act, non-production of goods under Rule 140(2) was treated as relevant to confiscation under Section 130, not as an automatic basis for penalty. Where tax, penalty, and the value of the goods are secured by bank guarantee and equivalent security, confiscation is not triggered merely because the goods are not produced. The article also notes that writ interference under Article 226 may be declined when an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available, even though the court may still clarify the legal effect of Rule 140(2) and the furnishing of security. en-us Thu, 08 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Apr 2019 11:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371297 In detention proceedings under Section 129 of the IGST Act, non-production of goods under Rule 140(2) was treated as relevant to confiscation under Section 130, not as an automatic basis for penalty. Where tax, penalty, and the value of the goods are secured by bank guarantee and equivalent security, confiscation is not triggered merely because the goods are not produced. The article also notes that writ interference under Article 226 may be declined when an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available, even though the court may still clarify the legal effect of Rule 140(2) and the furnishing of security. Case-Laws GST Thu, 08 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371297