Court upholds detention of goods under CGST Act, orders release with bank guarantee.

The court declined to interfere with the adjudicating authority's decision to detain goods under Section 129 of the CGST Act due to discrepancies in the e-way bill, noting that relevant judgments cited by the petitioner did not directly apply. The court ordered the provisional release of the vehicles upon submission of a bank guarantee, with the adjudicating authority instructed to make a decision within two months. Compliance with document submission and other requirements was required, and the final outcome depended on the authority's decision, emphasizing the court's observations should not influence the authority's determination.

---

---

Issues:
Detention of goods under Section 129 of the CGST Act due to an alleged irregularity in the e-way bill.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a company dealing in auto mobile tyres, filed a petition challenging the detention of goods under Section 129 of the CGST Act. The petitioner's branch, operating under a C & F Agency, issued a tax invoice on 27.02.2020 to a customer in Kollam, with an e-way bill generated based on the invoice. Due to a mechanical problem enroute, the goods were transferred to another vehicle, resulting in an amendment to the e-way bill. The petitioner argued that the reasons for detention were unjustified, citing relevant judgments. The respondent, however, contended that the amendment was not recorded in the e-way bill at the time of interception, constituting a violation of the Act rather than a mere irregularity.

Upon hearing both parties, the court noted that the cited judgments did not directly apply to the situation at hand, as they involved different scenarios. Section 129 of the CGST Act empowers officers to detain vehicles lacking statutory documents. The court observed that the e-way bill did not reflect the correct truck number at the time of interception, supporting the respondent's position. Consequently, the court declined to interfere with the adjudicating authority's decision, emphasizing its discretion in such matters.

As an interim measure, the court ordered the provisional release of the vehicles upon submission of a bank guarantee in accordance with Section 129. The adjudicating authority was instructed to make a decision within two months, during which the bank guarantee should not be encashed. The release was subject to compliance with document submission and other requirements, with the final outcome dependent on the authority's decision. The court clarified that its observations should not be construed as influencing the adjudicating authority's determination.

---