Detention order upheld under Section 129 of CGST Act for route discrepancy. Petitioner's goods released with bank guarantee.

The court upheld the detention order under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, finding it justified based on the discrepancy in the documents regarding the consignment's intended route. The petitioner's goods and vehicle were ordered to be released upon furnishing a bank guarantee for the specified tax and penalty amounts, with instructions to transfer the case files for further adjudication. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, resolving the issue.

---

---

Issues: Detention order under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act; Justification of detention based on discrepancy in documents; Release of goods on furnishing a bank guarantee.

Detention Order under Section 129 of the CGST Act:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging the Ext.P4 detention order issued under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act. The petitioner contested the detention of the vehicle and goods, arguing that the documents indicated the consignment was moving from one place to another, leading to a discrepancy as the detention occurred at a different location. The court reviewed the situation and concluded that the detention was not unjustified based on the discrepancy highlighted in the documents.

Justification of Detention Based on Discrepancy in Documents:
The court noted that the detention of the vehicle and goods was deemed reasonable due to the discrepancy identified in the documents presented by the driver. The documents suggested the consignment was intended to move from Kasargod to Kolhapur, whereas the detention took place at Perumbavoor. This discrepancy formed the basis for the detention order, and the court found it to be a valid reason for the action taken.

Release of Goods on Furnishing a Bank Guarantee:
In response to the petitioner's willingness to clear the goods by providing a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amounts specified in the Ext.P7 order, the court directed the 1st respondent to release the goods and vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing the bank guarantee. Furthermore, the court instructed the respondent to transfer the files to the adjudicating authority for further adjudication in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The writ petition was disposed of based on these directions, providing a resolution to the matter at hand.

---