2024 (6) TMI 228

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5.07.2022 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner was transporting gold jewellery from Mumbai to Bengaluru. When the vehicle was intercepted by respondent No. 4 on 30.06.2022, an order for vehicle verification was issued in GST MOV-02, pursuant to which proceedings under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'CGST Act') having been initiated, the same culminated in the order at Annexure - H dated 15.07.2022, in pursuance of the same, petitioner paid penalty of Rs. 14,50,560/- and filed an appeal which was also ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n for the respondents to initiate proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act and pass the impugned order, which do not warrant interference in the present petition and that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order and the Delivery Challan will indicate that except for non-disclosure of Kundan stones in the Delivery Challan, all other requirements of Rule 55 of the CGST Rules have been complied with by the petitioner as can be seen from the Delivery Challan itself. Despite this, both the Original Authority and the Appellate Authority have wrongly / erroneously invoked Rule 55 of the CGST Rules in order to come to the conclusion that there was mismatch between the Delivery....