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.
2. 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. 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.