Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
PANKAJ MITHAL, SHUBHA MEHTA
KPM Enterprises, Through Its Sole Proprietor Kamla Prasad Maurya, Son Of Shri Ram Palak – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Circle-F, Jaipur-Iii, Commercial Tax Department, Government Of Rajasthan – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
1. Heard Ms. Anjali Jha Manish and Mr. Anmol Arya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ayush Singh & Mr. Akshay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has preferred these writ petitions challenging the show cause notice dated 02.10.2022 and the validity of the order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the respondents under Section 130 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’) confiscating the goods and conveyance of the petitioner in transit.
3. The petitioner alleges that it had purchased the goods i.e. Areca nuts (betel nuts) from Chilur in Karnataka and the same were being transported to Delhi. The said goods during transit were intercepted, detained and finally confiscated vide impugned order dated 02.11.2022.
4. The submission is that the aforesaid order is without jurisdiction and has been passed in violation of the principles of natural jus
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 ....
Natural justice requirements necessitate notice to affected parties; however, notice to the driver suffices, supporting reliance on alternative statutory remedies for contesting orders.
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....
Intention to evade tax is a prerequisite for imposing penalties under GST Act; mere technical issues should not warrant such penalties.
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