9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . For The PETITIONER : ADVS. SMT. M. K. HAJARA AND SRI. C. RAMACHANDRAN For The RESPONDENTS : MR G. P. DR. THUSHARA JAMES JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 series notices issued by the 1st respondent as illegal and without jurisdiction. Ext.P4(c) is an order of detention made under Section 129 (1) of CGST Act, 2017 and Ext.P4 (d) is a notice issued under Section 129 (3) of the Act. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valid transit. The detention order cannot and could not be treated as final, for according to her section 129 deals with and provides for not only detention but also for release of goods, subject to the petitioner complying with the mandate of Section 129 of the Act. According to her, the petitioner if insists for the release of goods, the petitioner can furnish the bank guarantee for the tax and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is disposed of by this order. 5. The issues raised are at preliminary stage and this Court is not convinced to entertain the writ petition and adjudicate upon merits at this stage. To confirm to the scheme under the Act, the writ petition is disposed of by this order. The petitioner submits bank guarantee for the tax and penalty as shown in Ext.P4(d) and applies for release of goods by enclos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
