Heard both sides.

2. By this petition, the petitioner prays for a direction to the 1st respondent to release vehicle KL-04-AM-4076.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that e-way bill was generated at 09.28 pm on 18.01.2021 for supplying goods to Idukki district and the vehicle left the factory on 19.01.2021. But there was break down which resulted in stoppage of that trip. It is further submitted that the vehicle could continue its journey only on 20.01.2021 and was checked at Adimali, which resulted in issuing notices at Exts.P1, P2 and P3, by which goods were detained. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that because of break down, the journey could not be continued in pursuant to the e-way bill. It is argued that within the statutory time limit, the journey started and therefore, the impugned action is not justifiable.

4. As against this, the learned Government pleader drew my attention to Rule 138 of the GST Rules and argued that for transportation of goods, the necessary documents, including e-way bill is must. According to the learned Government Pleader, the petition itself demonstrates that the expired e-way bill was not renewed and vehicle was detained on 20.01.2021. Learned Government Pleader further argued that in the light of judgment of this Court in W.P.(C). No.17379 of 2020 decided on 12.01.2021, when GST MOV-06 Form is issued, then the High Court may not interfere in the notice proceedings.

5. I have considered the submissions so advanced. It is not in dispute that at the time of interception, the vehicle was not having valid e-way bill. Thus the said vehicle is detained and proceedings under Section 129 of the GST Act, 2017 are going on. The notice at Ext.P3, mentioning the discrepancies, is served on the petitioner.

In this view of the matter, it is for the petitioner to appear and making his stand before the authorities. No case for interference is made out and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.