Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017—Goods in Transit—In the instant case, A consignment of marble, granite slabs and tiles that was being transported at the instance of the petitioner was detained by the respondent. Ext.P3. The petitioner stated that defect indicated in Ext.P3 notice is only a technical one, and therefore ought not to have been a reason for detaining the goods.
Held that— the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that a minor defect in a mandatory document cannot be a ground for detention. A division bench of this court is already found that that the goods detained under a detention notice issued in terms of the CGST/SGST Act cannot be released unless a security equal to the amount demanded is insisted from the assessee, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be served by directing the 1st respondent to release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner on the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the security amount demanded in Ext.P3 detention notice.[KAIRALI GRANITES] [KERALA HIGH COURT] [2018] 2 TAXLOK.COM 098 (Ker)