Shameer Chinganam Poyil v. Assistant State Tax Officer  114 taxmann.com 475 (Kerala)
Detention of Goods in absence of Original Invoice valid even though invoice shown in electronic format at the check post
The goods transported by petitioner were detained as at the time of detention, original invoice was not produced by driver of vehicle. It is stated that the original of the invoice was shown to the check post authorities in the electronic format, and therefore, there was no justification for the detention.
Contention of Respondent- In terms of Rule 138A of the SGST Rules, transporter of goods is obliged to produce a copy of invoice and a copy of e-way bill. While the latter document can be produced either as a document or in electronic format, the invoice has necessarily to be produced in documentary format. In the instant case, it is stated that the invoice was not produced, and this was why the goods were detained.
Held: It was held thatthe absence of an invoice can be a valid ground for detention under section 129 of the GST Act. Accordingly, detention order is justified. However, if petitioner furnishes bank guarantee for tax and penalty amount determined, then respondent shall release consignment and vehicle to petitioner, and thereafter proceed for adjudication in terms of section 138 of GST Act, after hearing petitioner.
Kannangayathu Metals v. Assistant State Tax Officer  113 taxmann.com 176 (Kerala)
There cannot be a mechanical detention of a consignment solely because driver of vehicle had opted for a different route, other than what is normally taken by other transporters of goods covered by similar e-Way bills.
Facts: Detention notice was issued to petitioner detaining goods and vehicle at a place called Vazhayila. The reason shown in notice for detention is that e-Way Bill in respect of consignment showed that it was to cover a transportation from Pazhoor-Peppathi to Vettoor road- Kaniyapuram whereas the vehicle was detained at Vazhayila which was not on that route.
Contention of Petitioner- Since the driver of vehicle had taken an alternate route through MC Road, vehicle had to reach Vazhayila before turning to Kaniyapuram and it was therefore that the vehicle was intercepted at Vazhayila by the respondents. There is no mandate under section 129 of the GST Act for detaining goods that were covered by a valid e-Way Bill merely because the driver of the vehicle took an alternate route to reach the same destination.
Held- It was held that there cannot be a mechanical detention of a consignment solely because driver of vehicle had opted for a different route, other than what is normally taken by other transporters of goods covered by similar e-Way bills. No doubt, if vehicle is detained at a place that is located on an entirely different stretch of road and plying in a direction other than towards destination shown in the e-Way bill, then a presumption could be drawn that there was an attempt at transportation contrary to the e-Way Bill. In the instant case, there is no such indication. The writ petition was allowed by directing respondent to forthwith release goods and consignment to petitioner.
Relcon Foundations (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer  112 taxmann.com 255 (Kerala)
Non-filing of GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 cannot be a valid ground for detention of grounds under Section 129 or issuing notice under Section 130
Facts: Vehicle carrying goods was detained on the ground that GSTR 3B returns had not been filed from June 2018 and GSTR I had not been filed from March 2019.
Contention of Petitioner-It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said grounds cannot be justified for detention of the vehicle under Section 129 of the KGST Act.
Held: It was held that the non-filing of returns cannot be a justification for detaining goods in terms of Section 129 of the KGST Act. Similarly, the said ground cannot form the basis notice proposing confiscation of the goods detained inasmuch as the ingredients of the offence covered by Section 130 are not satisfied in the instant case. The writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondent to forthwith release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner.
National Steel Agencies v. Assistant State Tax Officer  115 taxmann.com 36 (Kerala)
Detention made on account of validity of e-way bill expired cannot be held to be unjustified
Facts: The detention was on ground that validity period of e-way bill that accompanied transportation had already expired at the time of detention.
Held: It was held that under the said circumstances, I find that the detention cannot be said to be unjustified. It was directed that if petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee for tax and penalty for the amount quantified in order, then respondents shall release consignment and vehicle to petitioner. Respondents shall, thereafter, proceed to adjudicate the issue after notice to petitioner and in accordance with procedure prescribed under section 130 of the GST Act.