Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2024 (12) TMI 1355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he necessary E-way bill that had been handed over to the driver of the vehicle, by the consignor, who is the 6th respondent. This consignment was to be delivered from Vijayawada to Hyderabad in Telangana State. 2. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the seizure of the vehicle, has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition. 3. Sri J. N. Venkata Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assails the said seizure of the vehicle, on two grounds. Firstly, Section 129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (herein-after referred to as "the Act") requires the authorities, seizing the vehicle, to furnish reasons for such seizure and to issue a show cause notice within 7 days from the date of seizure. Thereafter, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., one Sri S. Suresh, was served with the order of detention on the date of detention itself. Subsequently, the driver was also served with a show cause notice as required under Section 129 of the Act and proceedings were initiated. The 1st respondent contends that proceedings could not be completed on account of non-cooperation of the petitioner. 7. On the question of infraction of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the 1st respondent contends that the details of transport, obtained by the 1st respondent, showed that the goods were moved from Hyderabad to Vijayawada, under an E-way bill generated at 9.16 P.M. on 02.11.2024 and subsequently, the 6th respondent generated an E-way bill showing the movement of the goods from Vijayawada t....