GST transit detention release must follow the statutory mechanism; courts cannot grant a more lenient interim arrangement.

Goods detained under the GST transit provisions could be released only through the statutory mechanism in Section 129 and the rules, and the Court could not substitute a more lenient interim release arrangement on a reduced amount or bond. The statutory scheme for detention, release and consequences of non-compliance was treated as self-contained, and the Court declined at the interlocutory stage to examine broader factual disputes, including the nature of the vehicle, claimed exemption for used personal and household effects, or the validity of the transaction, leaving those matters to the competent authorities for merits determination.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods detained for alleged non-compliance with the e-way bill requirements could be released on a reduced amount or bond pending adjudication, or whether the detention had to be dealt with strictly under the statutory mechanism in Section 129 and the relevant rules.

Analysis: The statutory scheme for detention and release of goods in transit was read as a self-contained mechanism. Section 129 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with the related provisions governing transit documents and e-way bills, prescribes the manner in which detained goods may be released and the consequences of non-compliance. The Court declined to enter into the petitioners' broader factual and interpretive claims regarding the nature of the vehicle, the applicability of the exemption for used personal and household effects, or the validity of the transaction at the interim stage, because those issues were left for the competent authorities to decide. Binding precedent was treated as controlling on the point that the Court could not rewrite the statutory mechanism for interim release.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to an interim release on terms outside the statutory framework. The goods could be released only by compliance with Section 129 and the relevant rules.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition did not succeed on the request for modified interim relief, and the statutory adjudicatory process was left intact for determination of the dispute on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the goods are detained under the GST transit provisions, interim release must be sought only in the manner expressly provided by the statute and the rules, and the Court cannot substitute a more lenient release mechanism at the interlocutory stage.

---