Detention of goods and vehicle on account of different route opted by driver not justified

Facts of the case:

1. Competent Authority has detained goods under transport and the vehicle on ground that e-way bill in respect of consignment showed that it was to cover a transportation from a different route, whereas the vehicle was on a different route.
2. Petitioner filed a writ petition to the honorable High Court contending that there was no mandate under section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 for detaining goods that were covered by a valid e-way bill merely because the driver of vehicle took an alternate route.

Judgment:

1. There cannot be a mechanical detention of a consignment solely because the driver of the vehicle has opted for a different route, other than what is normally taken by other transporters of goods covered by similar e-Way bills.
2. However, if the vehicle is detained at a place that is located on an entirely different stretch of road and plying in a direction other than towards the destination shown in the e-Way bill, then an assumption could be drawn that there was an attempt to transportation contrary to the e-Way bill.
3. In the instant case, there is no such indication and the goods and consignment must be released.

Source: Kannangayathu Metals vs Assistant State Tax officer (Kerala High Court)