2021 (2) TMI 592

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... A.M.BADAR PETITIONER: BY ADV. SRI. BOBBY JOHN   RESPONDENTS:  GP-SMT. THUSHARA JAMES   JUDGMENT   Heard both sides. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is a partnership firm doing business in the name and style of UP & UP elevators at Cherthala in Alapuzha. He argued that on 11.01.2021, the petitioner purchased 4 numbers of Contr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as the goods were to be transported for a distances up to 50 kms only, within the State. As such, there was no necessity to update the e-way bill. It is further argued that omission to extend the e-way bill is only a minor offence, as the goods were covered by proper tax invoice and as such, action of detention of goods is totally unjustified. 3. The learned Government Pleader argued that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ere detained while in transit because, validity of the e-way bill had expired and it was not re-validated within the prescribed time. As a consequence, notice under Section 129(3) of the GST Act came to be issued with a direction to the petitioner authority to appear before the respondent authority on 24.01.2021 for showing cause as to why necessary action as contemplated under Section 129 of the ....