Court upholds detention of goods/vehicle over e-way bill, allows release via bank guarantee; directs respondent to proceed with adjudication.

The court upheld the detention of goods and a vehicle due to the absence of a valid e-way bill but allowed the petitioner to secure their release by providing a bank guarantee for the specified amount. The respondent was directed to release the goods and vehicle upon receiving the bank guarantee, and to proceed with adjudicating the matter under Section 129(3) of the GST Act. Communication of the judgment's essence to the respondent was mandated for swift compliance and further necessary actions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Detention of goods and vehicle due to lack of valid e-way bill.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Detention of Goods and Vehicle:
The petitioner approached the court aggrieved by the detention notice (Ext.P3) issued by the respondent due to the absence of a valid e-way bill accompanying the transportation of goods. The court found that the detention was justified based on this reason. However, considering the request of the petitioner's counsel, the court directed that upon furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in Ext.P3, the respondent should release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner. This decision was made under Section 129(3) of the GST Act.

2. Bank Guarantee and Clearance of Goods:
The court's judgment allowed the petitioner to clear the goods and the vehicle by providing a bank guarantee for the amount specified in the detention notice. Once the bank guarantee is furnished, the respondent is obligated to release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner. It was further directed that the respondent should proceed to adjudicate the matter under Section 129(3) of the GST Act after hearing the petitioner.

3. Communication and Compliance:
The court instructed the learned Government Pleader to convey the essence of the judgment to the respondent. This communication was aimed at facilitating the swift clearance of the goods and the vehicle upon compliance with the conditions set forth in the judgment. Additionally, the petitioner was mandated to present a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment to the respondents for further necessary actions.

In conclusion, the court upheld the detention of the goods and the vehicle due to the absence of a valid e-way bill but provided a pathway for the petitioner to secure their release by furnishing a bank guarantee. The judgment emphasized compliance with the conditions outlined under the GST Act for the adjudication of the matter, ensuring a fair process moving forward.

---