TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 2001
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2026. the Appellate Authority confirmed the invocation of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('the Act') by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Enforcement-2), Kalaburagi ('the proper officer'), passed in Order No: ACCT/ENF/2/52 dated 25.01.2024. Factual matrix (2) The appellant is primarily engaged in job work activities and is registered under the Act, bearing GSTIN: 29AAACB1541Q1ZG. The appellant operates as a job worker for its Solapur unit, Maharashtra. The appellant receives PP granules from the Solapur unit, converts them into PP woven fabrics and returns the finished goods to the Solapur unit. (3) The appellant despatched PP woven fabric, PP wastage, and scrap to the Solapur unit on 24.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of goods to Solapur, Maharashtra, represented a return of goods after processing to the principal and did not constitute a taxable supply. The question of whether the transaction represented 'job work' or 'taxable supply' is a matter of assessment and cannot be determined under Section 129; hence, the proper officer exceeded his jurisdiction. The appellant had complied with Rule 55 of the CGST Rules, as the consignment was accompanied by a delivery challan and e-way bill. Since the movement was not a taxable supply, the absence of IGST on the delivery challan was not a 'defect' or a contravention of the Act or the rules. The absence of an allegation of a mismatch between the physical goods and the e-way bill and delivery challan proves that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ues arise for our consideration: (a) Whether the additional grounds filed by the appellant are maintainable before the Tribunal? (b) Whether the order of the proper officer demanding tax and penalty, applying the pre-amended Section 129(1)(a), instead of demanding penalty alone as per the amended law, would result in the entire proceedings being declared void ab initio? (c) Whether the invocation of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case? (a) Whether the additional grounds filed by the appellant are maintainable before the Tribunal? (9) The Supreme Court in National Thermal Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1998) 229 IT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a clear intention to the contrary. (11) The aforesaid decision is not applicable in the present case. Section 129 addresses violations of the Act or the rules when any person transports or stores goods in transit. In the event of violation of the Act or the rules, the goods and the conveyance are liable for detention or seizure. Section 129(1)(a), (b) and (c) provides for release of the goods and/or consignment on the payment of the amounts mentioned in sub-clauses (a) or (b) of Section 129(1). Before 1.1.2022, the goods and conveyance could be released, inter alia, if tax and penalty were paid, under Section 129(1)(a). After 1.1.2022, the goods and conveyance can be released, inter alia, if a penalty equal to 200% of the tax payable is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansported is not capital goods as mentioned in section 143 of the KGST Act, 2017. The tax payer has not charged IGST on the interstate goods transportation between two entities. Hence, the goods transported were on the basis of defective document." Section 143 of the Act states that a registered person can send inputs or capital goods to a job worker without payment of tax. The registered person must receive the finished goods within 1 year, at any of its places of business, after completion of the job work, without payment of tax. When the despatch of goods for job work is not taxable under Section 143, the reasoning that IGST was not charged for the inter-state transaction is incorrect. Section 143 is applicable to both inputs and capi....