Court Orders Release of Goods on Writ Petition, Emphasizes Need for Evidence

The court allowed the writ petition, directing the 1st respondent to release the goods and consignment to the petitioner as there was no indication of transportation contrary to the e-Way Bill. The judgment emphasized that detaining goods should not be automatic solely based on the driver choosing a different route, without evidence of deviation from the specified destination in the e-Way Bill.

---

---

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.

---