Case Law Details
Piyush Steel, D and I Excelcus Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
It appears that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 detained the goods on 29.11.2020 while in transit in exercise of power under Section 129 (1) of the GST Act on the ground that there is some mismatch between the invoice and the e-way bill inasmuch as the invoice had been issued by the writ applicant situated at Bhavnagar where the place of dispatch mentioned in the e-way bill is shown to be Jalna at State of Maharashtra.
Mr. Antani, the learned AGP has fairly pointed out that he has discussed the matter with the officer concerned and he has been instructed to make a statement before the court that the inquiry conducted so far has revealed that there has been no contravention of any of the provisions of the GST Act or the Rules. Mr. Antani further submits that, as there was some confusion, the authority concerned thought fit to detain the goods under Section 129 of the GST Act. However, after thorough inquiry, the authority itself has come to the conclusion that it is no longer necessary to detain the goods and the vehicle.
In view of the specific stance of the respondent No.2, as noted above, we now need not go into the merits of this matter. This writ application stands allowed. The respondent No.2 shall release the goods as well as the vehicle at the earliest. As it may take some time to transfer the order, Mr. Antani is requested to communicate this order to the respondent No.2.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
