Vehicle Detention Upheld under GST Act due to Expired E-Way Bill

The Court upheld the detention of the petitioner's vehicle under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, due to an expired E-Way bill issue. It directed the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy under Section 107 instead of invoking Article 226 jurisdiction, emphasizing compliance with natural justice. The Court allowed for the release of goods upon furnishing a bank guarantee for the demanded amount within a week, with failure to appeal leading to encashment. Filing an appeal would suspend encashment until appeal disposal, stressing the importance of adhering to legal procedures.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging detention order under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226; Compliance with natural justice under Section 129 of the Act; Applicability of appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the detention of their vehicle under Section 129(1) due to an expired E-Way bill issue, challenging orders Exts.P5, P6, and P8. The petitioner argued that the respondent's order under Section 129(3) was arbitrary and lacked consideration of objections raised, seeking intervention through Article 226 jurisdiction. The counsel highlighted the absence of a reasoned order and excess of jurisdiction in passing Ext.P8, emphasizing the need for judicial interference.

The Senior Government Pleader pointed out Section 107 of the Act as the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner. Ext.P8, being an order under Section 129(3), is appealable under Section 107, with the Court having the discretion to intervene in exceptional cases of detention orders. However, the Court noted that Section 129 constitutes a self-contained mechanism, requiring compliance with natural justice. Given that due process was followed, including issuing Ext.P6 notice and providing a hearing, the Court deemed it inappropriate to invoke Article 226, directing the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy under Section 107.

Despite upholding the detention, the Court allowed for the release of the goods upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the demanded amount within a week. Failure to appeal within the prescribed period would result in encashment of the bank guarantee. Conversely, filing an appeal would suspend encashment until appeal disposal. The Court emphasized the necessity of filing any appeal in accordance with the law, ultimately disposing of the writ petition accordingly.

---