TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 3rd respondent - Section 129 of GST Act - HELD THAT:- This court would not be an appropriate authority to adjudicate the controversy to either of the human error or intentional or willful. It would be the domain of the adjudicating authority - For the time being, the goods detained can be released, subject to the compliance of conditions referred to in Sec.129(1) of the Act and Rule 43 of 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ablished in the year 1984 had been working without any legal hassles. On the basis of the purchase order placed by the 3rd respondent at Kollam in Kerala, the petitioner being distributor of Godrej Industries, placed orders for certain goods to Godrej Industries. For the aforementioned purpose, the service of Kerala Roadways (KRS), a transporter, was engaged to collect the goods from Valia, Bharuc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transportation of the consignments from Gujarat to Kollam were defective, resulting into detention order Ext.P8 and 9. He submits this as a human error, as E-Way bill reflected entry of Kollam. Therefore the detention as per Sec.129 is not sustainable. 4. Dr. Thushara James, the learned government pleader submits that opening line of the Sec.129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act that in case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
