![]()
Brief Facts of the Case:
In the given case the petitioner's goods have been detained on account of discrepancy
in e-Way bill. The first e-Way bill generated by the petitioner is produced as
Ext.P4. Therein, the place of delivery was mentioned as 'Payhanamthitta, Kerala
- 686547'. The value of the goods is shown as Rs.3882200/-. Noting that the
mention of place of delivery as 'Payhanamthitta' is a mistake, that e-Way bill
was cancelled and the petitioner generated another e-Way bill produced as
Ext.P5. In Ext.P5, the place of delivery was correctly shown as
'Pathanamthitta'. However, the value of the goods was mentioned as Rs.388220/-
instead of Rs.3882200. Taking exception to this e Way bill, goods have been detained.
View of Court:
After analyzing of the submission made by the petitioner and respondent the
court put their view that If a human error which can be seen on naked eye is
detected, such human error cannot be capitalised for penalisation. Normally,
this Court could not have persuaded to accept the contention on prima facie value
as it is a matter for decision by competent authority and this Court can only
order release of the vehicle and goods as against Bank guarantee. But I am
persuaded to adopt a different course for the simple reason that if the
petitioner had paid the IGST in accordance with the value as shown in the
original bill, goods cannot be detained and shall be released to the
petitioner.
Order Passed:
Therefore, the following orders are issued. On verification, if it is found that
the petitioner had paid the IGST in accordance with the value shown in Ext.P4,
the vehicle and the goods shall be released to the petitioner on executing a
simple bond. However, if it is found that the petitioner had not paid the IGST
according to the value shown in Ext.P4, the petitioner's goods and vehicle need
be released
only on furnishing bank guarantee. This writ petition is disposed of as above.
Click here
