Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Ignoring Court-Mandated PWD Safety Report Invalidates Municipal Order: J&K&L High Court
06 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Reserves Verdict in Raju Tampering Conviction Plea
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, HARINATH. N
Cluster Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2 – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)
Both these Writ Petitions arise, essentially, out of the same set of facts and raise similar questions of fact and law. In such circumstances, both these Writ Petitions are disposed of by way of this Common Order.
2. Heard Sri V. Bhaskar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V. Siddharth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax.
3. The petitioners herein are dealers of scrap iron and were transporting scrap iron for sale to a dealer in Telangana State. The vehicles in which this scrap iron was being transported was stopped for verification and inspection on 27.04.2024 by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Office of the Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Department, Kadapa. He is arrayed as the 1st respondent in both the Writ Petitions.
4. After verifying the documents available with the driver of the conveyance, the 1st respondent issued a notice in Form GST MOV-10, under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2
The court established that confiscation under Section 130 requires prior action under Section 129, and adherence to natural justice is essential in such proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the independence of proceedings for detention of goods under Section 129 and confiscation of goods under Section 130 of the CGST/APGST Act, as expl....
The court emphasized that disputed questions of fact and law should be adjudicated in appeal before the Appellate Authority, and the order of confiscation was open to appeal under Section 107 of the ....
Minor errors in e-way bills do not justify detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act if the goods are otherwise properly documented.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to carry an e-way bill and discrepancies in the transportation route can infer an intention to evade tax, justifying the penalt....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article