Undervaluation is no sufficient reason for detaining the goods
Complete extract of Order is givn below:
The challenge in the writ petition is to Exts. P8 and P11 detention notices issued to the petitioner detaining goods that were transported at the instance of the petitioner. A perusal of Exts.P8 and P11 notices would indicate that the goods belonging to the petitioner, and covered by Exts.P1 and P1(a) invoices, were detained for an alleged discrepancy noticed in respect of the E- way bill raised in connection with Ext.P1 invoice. I note however that the discrepancy noticed is with regard to the value of the commodity as shown in Ext.P1 invoice, which is Rs.25.60, whereas in the E-way bill, it was shown as Rs.25.66. It is also the case of the detaining authority that the commodity in question was undervalued by the vendor by offering excessive discounts to the purchaser.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that the reasons shown in Exts.P8 and P11 notices, that are impugned in this writ petition, are not sufficient for the purposes of detaining the goods in terms of Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act. Accordingly, I direct the 1st respondent to forthwith release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner on the petitioner producing a copy of this judgment before the said respondent. The 1st respondent shall thereafter forward the files for adjudication to the adjudicating authority.
The writ petition is disposed as above.
For Regular Professional Updates Join : https://t.me/Studycafe