The petitioner is a company, registered under the Companies Act 1956, with registered office in Mumbai, dealing in Auto Mobile Tyres, Tubes, Flaps, etc. filing regular returns under the Goods and Service Tax Act and Rules framed thereunder. It has a branch run under a Carry and Forward (C & F) Agency, M/s. GNXT Power Corp, which raised tax invoice on 27.02.2020, on a customer dealer located at Kollam. True copy of the tax invoice affixed with dispatched date 02.03.2020 at 12.30 pm to be supplied to M/s. Sunlube Marketing, Kollam.

For the purpose of transporting the aforementioned goods, Ext.P2 e-way bill was generated on the basis of Ext.P1 tax invoice, with vehicle number KL07 CM 5213. It is also submitted that in enroute, for the reason of mechanical problem, the C & F Agent arranged another vehicle No.KL07 BY 3069 for onward transportation. The said amendment in the eway bill was caused on 02.03.2020 at 7.31.pm. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the reasons assigned in the detention order are totally atrocious much less fallacious and could not have been detained while exercising the powers under Section 129 of the Central Sales and Goods Service Act, 2017. In support of the contention reliance has been laid to the Division Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court dated 03.04.2018 rendered in Writ Tax No.637/2018 (Ext.P7) and judgment of this Court dated 08.11.2019 in W.P.(C).No.30185/2019.

2. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that at the time of interception, the alleged correction sought to be relied upon was not recorded in the e-way bill as it was issued at 3.55 pm.

Thus it cannot said to be irregularity, but violation of provisions of the Act, 2017. Thus he supported the detention in terms of the provisions of Section 129.

3. Having Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book, I am of the view that there is no force and merits in the submission of Mr.Tomson.T.Emmauel for the reason that both the cited judgments particularly, the Division Bench Allahabad pertains to the transport of goods with a different truck number from the place of manufacture to the transport in the local area and not to the destination ie. the consignee, whereas the other matter of this Court is a case of change of route. Section 129 of the CGST Act starts with a non obstante clause enabling the officers of Revenue to detain vehicles in case the vehicles are transported without statutory documents. The e-way bill at that relevant point of time did not mention the truck No. KL07 BY 3069 whereas at the relevant time it was no. KL07 CM 5213.

4. In such circumstances, I am of the view that this Court cannot sit over the decision of the adjudicating authority to form an opinion as in my view, it is strictly within the domain of the authority to consider at appropriate and relevant point of time. However, as an interim measure, I order the release of vehicles provisionally on submission of the bank guarantee in terms of the provisions of Section 129. On submission of the documents and necessary compliance, the goods and the vehicle detained are released subject to the outcome of the decision to be taken by the Revenue.

Let the adjudicating authority take the decision within a period of two months and till such time, it shall not encash the bank guarantee and take necessary steps on the basis of the finality of the proceedings. Anything observed herein shall not be construed as an expression of opinion for the adjudicating authority.