Transporter Avoids CGST Penalty After Driver's Mistaken Diversion of Stainless Steel Shipment Deemed Human Error

The HC set aside penalty orders under CGST Act against a transporter whose driver mistakenly diverted a vehicle carrying stainless steel coils from Mumbai to Bengaluru. Despite authorities claiming deliberate diversion, the court found the explanation of human error credible, supported by driver's affidavit and confirmation from intended purchasers. The court ordered release of detained goods and vehicle, noting the driver possessed necessary documents for intended delivery locations. The court emphasized this ruling was based on unique circumstances and should not serve as precedent for future cases.

---

---

Issues:
1. Alleged diversion of goods during transportation
2. Invocation of Rule 138A of CGST Rules and Section 129 of CGST Act
3. Petitioner's contention of human error vs. deliberate diversion
4. Authorities' argument against petitioner's explanation
5. Decision on setting aside the impugned orders

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a transporter with valid GST registration, was transporting stainless steel coils and plates from Mumbai to Bengaluru. During transportation, the driver mistakenly diverted towards Bommasandra Industrial Area instead of Peenya Industrial Area, where two consignments were to be delivered. The vehicle was stopped at Jigani link road and checked for documents, leading to the imposition of penalties under Rule 138A of CGST Rules and Section 129 of CGST Act.

2. The petitioner argued that the diversion was a human error, not intentional, supported by an affidavit from the driver and communication from the intended purchasers confirming the delivery locations. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the diversion was deliberate, citing the driver's familiarity with the route and the vehicle being detained at Bommasandra Industrial Area without valid documents for that location.

3. The court noted that the driver had the necessary documents for the intended delivery locations, indicating a possibility of human error due to the late-night incident. Considering the explanations provided by the driver and the purchasers, the court found no conclusive evidence of deliberate diversion, setting aside the impugned orders under Section 107(11) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

4. In the judgment, the court directed the release of the detained vehicle and goods, emphasizing the unique circumstances of the case and clarifying that the decision should not serve as a precedent for future cases. The impugned orders dated 10.03.2022 and 13.12.2021 were set aside, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with pending matters also being resolved.

---