https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784441 Detention of goods and imposition of penalty under s.129 CGST/KGST for alleged route deviation was examined where the consignment was accompanied by a valid tax invoice and no discrepancy was found in the goods or documents. The HC held that mere change of route, without cogent material proving deliberate tax evasion, cannot justify invoking s.129; the authorities relied only on a cyclostyled driver statement and ignored the consignor's prompt, plausible explanation of an inadvertent wrong turn. In the absence of evidence that the dealer instructed a deliberate deviation, resort to s.129 was impermissible and, at most, a general penalty under s.125 could be considered. The impugned penalty order was set aside and the petition was allowed. en-us Wed, 05 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2026 08:04:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784441 Detention of goods and imposition of penalty under s.129 CGST/KGST for alleged route deviation was examined where the consignment was accompanied by a valid tax invoice and no discrepancy was found in the goods or documents. The HC held that mere change of route, without cogent material proving deliberate tax evasion, cannot justify invoking s.129; the authorities relied only on a cyclostyled driver statement and ignored the consignor's prompt, plausible explanation of an inadvertent wrong turn. In the absence of evidence that the dealer instructed a deliberate deviation, resort to s.129 was impermissible and, at most, a general penalty under s.125 could be considered. The impugned penalty order was set aside and the petition was allowed. Case-Laws GST Wed, 05 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784441