2019 (6) TMI 116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Respondent : GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext. P3 notice issued under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 as illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of the second respondent. The petitioner was transporting goods as per invoice dated 13. 5. 2019 (Ext. P2) and on 14. 5. 2019 the vehicle in which the goods were transported was intercepted by the se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tting aside the Ext. P4 order. 3. Dr. Thushara James appearing for the respondents submits that from the internal evidence available on exhibits filed by the petitioner, it can be easily contended that the interception of vehicle is certainly beyond the place of detention covered by the invoice and that E-Bill was generated after the vehicle was intercepted and the defect found by the second res....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dent that the transit of goods was strictly in accordance with the requirements of the law, the detention of goods is not warranted, the petitioner has no difficulty in furnishing the bank guarantee, but he states that the authority will not pass final orders in this behalf, resulting in the petitioner continuously keeping the bank guarantee alive. He further submits that the bank guarantee is als....