2018 Taxo.online 426

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16156 of 2018 dated 24.10.2018





Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017

Section 129, 130

Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

Rule 138

Akil Kureshi, Justice & Umesh Trivedi, Justice


High Court


Represented by: – 

Petitioner: – Kuntal A Parikh 

Respondent: –  

Order: – 

  1. The petitioners grievance is that the goods of the petitioners being transported by the transporter engaged by the petitioners did not reach the destination within the prescribed time as communicated in the documents maintained in terms of Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules on account of transporters strike. The transporter did not extend the validity. As a result, the respondents authorities demanded tax and penalty from the petitioners. In this context, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of portions of Sections 129 and 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules. 
  2. Prima facie we do not find the statutory provisions brought to our notice, its a situation of automatic imposition of tax and penalty at the rate of 100% on such tax. At this stage, we are not inclined to examine the vires of the statutory provisions. We would instead try to address the petitioners grievance within the statutory frame work. Under the circumstances, it is not necessary to issue notice to the learned Attorney General. 
  3. Let there be notice to the respondents returnable on 05.12.2018.

Free Trial

Are you looking for the Latest Rules, Notifications, and Case Laws?

Book your 7 days free trial

Book Now