https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424009 The HC addressed detention of goods for discrepancies between shipments and documentation under GST law. Petitioners' objections to show cause notices were rejected by the assessing authority, who demanded penalty payment within three days. Petitioners sought to furnish bank guarantees equivalent to the penalties for provisional release of goods. The court directed petitioners to provide bank guarantees for the specified penalty amounts, allowing immediate release of goods upon compliance, while dismissing challenges to the notices. The case turned on interpretation of Section 129 of CGST Act, which permits release of detained goods upon payment of applicable tax and penalty or furnishing equivalent security. en-us Tue, 14 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Apr 2025 16:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424009 The HC addressed detention of goods for discrepancies between shipments and documentation under GST law. Petitioners' objections to show cause notices were rejected by the assessing authority, who demanded penalty payment within three days. Petitioners sought to furnish bank guarantees equivalent to the penalties for provisional release of goods. The court directed petitioners to provide bank guarantees for the specified penalty amounts, allowing immediate release of goods upon compliance, while dismissing challenges to the notices. The case turned on interpretation of Section 129 of CGST Act, which permits release of detained goods upon payment of applicable tax and penalty or furnishing equivalent security. Case-Laws GST Tue, 14 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424009