https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765551 A writ challenge to penalty under GST section 129(3) was rejected because the petitioner's explanation that the goods were transferred to a parking yard required factual investigation and could not be accepted on the pleadings alone. The Court noted that the petitioner had time to assert ownership and take steps, yet the matter was handled casually, so no case was made out for interference under Article 226. The petition was dismissed, while the petitioner was left to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal with the aid of section 14 of the Limitation Act. en-us Fri, 31 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Oct 2025 13:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765551 A writ challenge to penalty under GST section 129(3) was rejected because the petitioner's explanation that the goods were transferred to a parking yard required factual investigation and could not be accepted on the pleadings alone. The Court noted that the petitioner had time to assert ownership and take steps, yet the matter was handled casually, so no case was made out for interference under Article 226. The petition was dismissed, while the petitioner was left to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal with the aid of section 14 of the Limitation Act. Case-Laws GST Fri, 31 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765551