E-way bill route mismatch can justify detention, though goods and vehicle may be released on bank guarantee.

Detention of a consignment was upheld where the route shown in the e-way bill did not match the route actually used for transport, the mismatch rendering the movement unsupported by a valid e-way bill. The Court nevertheless granted interim relief and permitted release of the goods and vehicle on furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in the notice, leaving the final order to be passed under section 129.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention of the consignment was justified on the ground that the route shown in the e-way bill did not match the route by which the goods were actually transported, and whether the goods and vehicle could be released on furnishing security.

Analysis: The detention was upheld as the transportation was not supported by a valid e-way bill in view of the mismatch in route particulars. At the same time, the Court accepted the request for interim relief and directed release of the goods and vehicle upon furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in the notice, with the final order to be passed under section 129 thereafter.

Conclusion: The detention was not found to be unjustified, but provisional release of the goods and vehicle was permitted on furnishing a bank guarantee.

---