Case Law Details
Daily Express Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
Section 129 is a self-contained code. It lays down the entire mechanism for provisional release of the goods. Section 129 begins with a non-obstante clause. It stands protected from every other provision. Earlier this Court, on more than one occasion, has held that unfilled Part B of the e-way bill cannot be treated as a minor omission even as for the CBIC circular, dated 14th September 2018. Whatever is the defence the petitioner may have, that could not exonerate it from complying with Section 129 (3) if it wants provisional custody of the goods. In other words, under Section 129, if the petitioner wants the goods provisionally released, then it must comply the statutory mandate.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a transporter. When it was transported goods for a consignor, the Assistant State Tax Officer (“ASTO”) intercepted those goods and detained them, along with the vehicle. He issued the Ext.P4 order for physical verification/inspection of the conveyance, followed by the Ext.P7 notice under Section 129(3). The reason assigned for the detention is this:
“Part B of the accompanied e-way bill has not completed, hence not valid for the movement of goods as per Section 138 of the GST Act and Rules 2017.”
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
