GST Rulings

EWB detention proceedings conclude on penalty payment, no need to issue order: Orissa HC

Orissa HC judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 3055 of 2025

Goods were detained & notice was issued u/s.129 of CGST Act. Assessee paid the penalty to secure release of the goods. Officer did not pass the order in Form GST MOV-09. Assessee filed a writ petition seeking passing of the order. Held: Upon payment of the penalty, all the proceedings stand concluded u/s.129(5) of the CGST Act. Hence, there was no illegality in not passing the order.

Comments

Assessee cannot litigate without the order. But, in countless cases, taxpayers pay the penalty without reserving their rights, in a hurry to secure the release of goods. Imagine if the order is not issued in all such cases!

Srinivasan V, Advocate

Share
Published by
Srinivasan V, Advocate
Tags: GST | E Way Bill
2 months ago

Recent Posts

Why right to cross-examination is not unfettered: Delhi HC

[Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, dated 09.04.2025, in W.P. (C) No. 4576…

2 weeks ago

Refund limitation for GST wrongly paid

GST was paid but later clarified as not payable by a beneficial circular. In Messrs…

3 months ago

GST | Should 3 months be construed as 90 days for limitation?

Order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court [dated 05.02.2025, in Cotton Corporation of India vs.…

3 months ago

GST | Should the date of issue of notice/order be included to calculate limitation?

Order of the Patna High Court [dated 04.02.2025, in Brand Protection Services (P.) Ltd. vs.…

3 months ago

Notice/order can be served on the portal only if it cannot be served in person / by post / email: Madras HC

Order of the High Court of Madras [dated 06.01.2025, in Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham vs. Authority,…

4 months ago

Goods intercepted due to absence of e-invoice; proceedings to lie u/s.122 not s.129 CGST Act: HC

Order of the High Court of Kerala [dated 07.11.2024, in OSEL Devices Ltd. vs. Assistant…

6 months ago