Detention of goods on a genuine delivery challan cannot rest on unstated defects or mere e-way declaration issues.

Detention under section 129 could not be sustained where goods were moved on a genuine delivery challan, because that mode of movement did not by itself make the consignment a taxable supply or justify detention for alleged non-compliance with rule 138(2). The authorities also could not defend the detention on a defect in the delivery challan that was not stated in the detention notice, since a new ground cannot be added later. The alleged intended supply to an unregistered firm was irrelevant where the movement was on a job work basis, which is not prohibited. The detention was held illegal and the consignment was ordered to be released forthwith.

---

---

Issues: Whether detention of goods transported on delivery challan could be sustained for alleged non-compliance with the e-way declaration requirement and on a ground not stated in the detention notice.

Analysis: Detention under section 129 is not available merely because the goods were moved on delivery challan if the genuineness of the challan is not doubted. Goods so transported are not taxable supplies merely on that account, and detention cannot rest solely on an asserted infraction of the declaration requirement under rule 138(2). The notice recorded only two grounds, and the detention could not be defended on a different defect in the delivery challan that was never stated in the notice. The alleged intended supply to an unregistered firm was also irrelevant where the movement was on job work basis and such transactions are not prohibited.

Conclusion: The detention was illegal and the consignment was directed to be released forthwith.

---