Transporter must comply with Section 129 for goods release.

The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the legality of the detention notices and requiring the transporter petitioner to comply with Section 129(1)(b) for the release of goods. The Court emphasized that being a transporter did not exempt the petitioner from following Section 129 provisions and allowed the petitioner to present a defense before the State Tax Officer regarding the detention issue.

---

---

Issues:
Detention of goods due to incomplete e-way bill | Applicability of Section 129 to transporters | Interpretation of Sections 126, 122 in relation to Section 129

Detention of Goods due to Incomplete E-way Bill:
The petitioner, a transporter, had goods detained by the Assistant State Tax Officer due to an incomplete e-way bill, leading to the issuance of a notice under Section 129(3) of the GST Act. The petitioner sought release of the goods, arguing that the detention was unwarranted as it was merely a transporter and not directly involved in the GST scheme. The petitioner's counsel contended that the transaction was genuine, with no tax evasion, and referenced Section 126 to support the exemption of minor discrepancies not involving tax evasion from detention under Section 129.

Applicability of Section 129 to Transporters:
The petitioner's counsel argued that Section 129 does not apply to transporters, as they are not directly involved in the GST scheme. However, the Government Pleader asserted that Section 129 is a self-contained code for the provisional release of goods, emphasizing the necessity for compliance with its provisions to secure provisional custody of detained goods. The Court noted that the petitioner's status as a transporter did not exempt it from complying with Section 129(1)(b) if interested in the goods, as per the Act.

Interpretation of Sections 126, 122 in Relation to Section 129:
The Court examined the interplay between Sections 126 and 129, noting that Section 129 begins with a non-obstante clause, indicating its self-contained nature for provisional release of goods. Reference to Section 126, which addresses penalties for minor breaches, suggested that while the petitioner could contest the matter before the State Tax Officer, compliance with Section 129 was necessary for interim release of goods. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's compliance with Section 129(1)(b) did not preclude presenting a defense before the State Tax Officer regarding the detention issue.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the legality of the detention notices and requiring the petitioner to comply with Section 129(1)(b) for the release of goods, while preserving the right to present a defense before the State Tax Officer on the detention matter.

---