Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit –- The petitioner challenged the detention order passed under Section 129 of the Act. The petitioner’s vehicle was detained on the ground that the e-way bill had expired on 8.7.2019. The court in its earlier order has directed the vehicle to be released on production of bank guarantee. Thereafter the order was passed. The petitioner preferred appeal, which was returned, stating that the appeal cannot be entertained as the petitioner had not paid any admitted tax, and there is no pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax. The court observed that the situation arising in the instant case, warranted imposition of only a minor penalty as contemplated under the Circular. Further, as noticed by the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court in Satyam Shivam’s case, the officer was duty bound to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner for the expiry of the e-way bill. There is no finding that there was any attempt to evade tax. The judgment of the Telangana High Court in Satyam Shivam's case was challenged before the Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed by a speaking order.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed writ petitions and remanded the matter to the 1st respondent who shall consider the amount of penalty to be imposed on the petitioner taking note of the findings in this Judgment.