Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit —–The petitioner challenged the orders dated 5.2.2021, whereby, the order of detention was affirmed. The goods were intercepted by the respondent. On detention of goods tax invoice, builty and e-way bill were shown. The SCN issued under Section 129 (3). The respondent without considering the reply passed the order dated 8.2.2020 demanding the petitioner to deposit the tax and penalty. An appeal was preferred, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 5.2.2020. The court observed that e-way bill clearly mentions the name of the petitioner and it was valid up to 15.2.2020. Once tax invoice on which I.G.S.T. was charged has not been disputed, therefore, no contravention of the provisions of the Act can be attributed. The Revenue has neither disputed the e-way bill generated nor the goods in question were found different than mentioned in the e-way bill and the tax invoices issued by the petitioner. There is neither any intention to evade the payment of tax nor any fault nor any contravention of the Act as all valid documents were accompanying with the goods. Once the valid document was accompanying with the goods, therefore the authorities ought not to have drag the petitioner in an unnecessary litigation.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ petition with cost of Rs. 5000/- payable to the petitioner. The respondents will be at liberty to recover the said cost from the erring officer. The cost shall be deposited within three months.