9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the respondents under Section 129(3) of the GST Act imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,40,000/-. 2. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner claims that the goods in question, were being moved by the petitioner to its parking yard at Varanasi as the borrower, had failed to make payment in terms of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned under Section 129(3) of the Act, was not justified. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the plea sought to be raised appears to be an afterthought inasmuch as the vehicle was detained on 02.07.2024 and the order impugned was passed on 18.07.2024, in between, no plea seeking ownership of the goods was raised by the petitioner. Whereafter also, despite being aware ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nied, despite the fact that petitioner had full 15 days to claim the ownership of the goods, no steps were taken and thereafter also the matter has been dealt with casually, the assertions made in the petition cannot be taken at face value. 8. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The same is, therefore, dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
