2019 (11) TMI 473 - HC - GST

Detention of goods and vehicle - petitioner would submit that there is no mandate under section 129 of the GST Act for detaining goods that were covered by a valid e-Way Bill merely because the driver of the vehicle took an alternate route to reach the same destination - HELD THAT - There cannot be a mechanical detention of a consignment solely because the driver of the vehicle had opted for a different route, other than what is normally taken by other transporters of goods covered by similar e-Way bills. No doubt, if the vehicle is detained at a place that is located on an entirely different stretch of road and plying in a direction other than towards the destination shown in the e- Way bill, then a presumption could be drawn that there was an attempt at transportation contrary to the e-Way Bill. This writ petition is allowed by directing the 1st respondent to forthwith release the goods and consignment to the petitioner - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Detention of goods and vehicle based on alternate route taken by driver contrary to e-Way Bill.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the Ext.P2 detention notice issued for detaining goods and the vehicle at a location different from the route specified in the e-Way Bill. The petitioner argued that the vehicle was intercepted at a different place due to the driver taking an alternate route through MC Road, which was a valid explanation for the deviation. The counsel contended that detaining goods solely based on the driver choosing a different route, without any indication of transportation contrary to the e-Way Bill, was not justified under section 129 of the GST Act.

Upon hearing both parties, the court considered the circumstances and submissions. The court agreed with the petitioner's argument that a consignment should not be mechanically detained just because the driver opted for a different route than usual. The judgment emphasized that detaining goods should not be automatic if the vehicle is on a different road stretch and not heading towards the specified destination in the e-Way Bill. In this case, as there was no indication of transportation contrary to the e-Way Bill, the court allowed the writ petition and directed the 1st respondent to release the goods and consignment to the petitioner upon producing a copy of the judgment.