Detained goods released with bank guarantee under Sec.129 & Rule 43 of 2017

The court ordered the release of the detained goods upon the petitioner providing a bank guarantee and other charges as per Sec.129 and Rule 43 of 2017. The court refrained from determining if the detention resulted from human error or intentional action, leaving it to the adjudicating authority. The respondents were directed not to encash the bank guarantee until the issue was resolved, with the release subject to the outcome of the controversy determined by the adjudicating authority.

---

---

Issues:
Detention of consignment invoices covered by Ext.P-1 and P-2 by the respondents.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a private limited company, engaged a transporter to collect goods from Gujarat for delivery in Kerala based on a purchase order from the 3rd respondent. Two tax invoices were raised for the consignments, with delivery intended at Kollam. However, the driver failed to carry the necessary invoices during transportation, leading to detention orders Ext.P8 and P9 due to defective documents. The petitioner argues this was a human error as the E-Way bill indicated delivery at Kollam, making the detention under Sec.129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act unsustainable.

The government pleader, Dr. Thushara James, cites Sec.129 of the GST Act, stating that goods are liable to be detained in case of any violation. The court refrains from adjudicating on whether the detention was due to human error or intentional action, deeming it the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority. The court orders the release of the detained goods upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee and other charges as per Sec.129 and Rule 43 of 2017. The release is subject to the outcome of the controversy determined by the adjudicating authority, with a directive that the respondents should not encash the bank guarantee until the issue is resolved.

---