Mere change in route doesn’t attract penalty u/s. 129 of GST Act

Hysum Steel Vs Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court)

Karnataka High Court held that mere change in route, without intention to evade tax, cannot attract penalty under section 129 of the KGST Act. Accordingly, order passed is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and hence petition is allowed.

Facts- The petitioner /consigner purchased the subject goods from M/S.VRKP Sponge and Power Plant LLP, Bellary, who raised Tax invoice, E- invoice and e-way bill dated 29.01.2023 and entrusted the subject goods to a transporter to transport the same from Bellary to the premises of the petitioner at No.48, Kannur, Mangalore.

The subject goods were loaded on to the vehicle on 29.01.2023 and left for its destination. It is contended that the driver of the vehicle inadvertently and without any malafide intention missed the route and drove the subject vehicle and goods to Moodabidire on 31.01.2023, when he stopped by the roadside for the purpose of having refreshments, at that time, the 2^nd respondent intercepted the vehicle and inspected the same and recorded the statement of the driver by issuing Form-GST MOV-01 dated 31.01.2023, pursuant to which, physical verification of the conveyance and goods were conducted, resulting in issuance of notice u/s. 129(3) of the KGST Act by the 2^nd respondent, who detained the conveyance and goods.