HC Upholds Detention Order Over Suspicious E-Way Bill and Banking Patterns

Centax Editorial Board

May 30, 2026

• 2 min. read

Case Details: Jamaludin vs. Commissioner of State Tax, Thiruvananthapuram (2026) 42 Centax 270 (Ker.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

- Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.
- S/Shri Aswin Gopakumar, Anwin Gopakumar, Aditya Venugopalan, Mahesh Chandran, Smt. Saranya Babu, Smt. Gouri Kailash & Rohit P., Advs., for the Petitioner.
- Shri Mohammed Rafique, SPL GP Taxes, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, proprietor of a registered arecanut trading concern, dispatched consignments of arecanut on the basis of self-invoices and e-way bills generated for interstate movement to Delhi. During transit, the vehicle carrying the consignment was intercepted and proceedings under GST MOV forms were initiated. The petitioner alleged that his statement recorded under summons was obtained under coercion and further challenged the legality of detention and continuation of proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act. The Department contended that the petitioner had recently obtained GST registration, generated multiple e-way bills involving substantial turnover, and supplied goods to a recipient entity whose registration had been cancelled.

Investigation further revealed that the recipient formed part of a shell company cluster, the detained vehicle was travelling in a direction opposite to the declared destination, and banking transactions did not correspond with the value of invoices. The matter was accordingly placed before the Kerala High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the materials gathered during the investigation disclosed strong prima facie evidence indicating contravention of GST provisions. It was observed that the vehicle was travelling towards Kannur, which was opposite to the declared destination of New Delhi, thereby supporting the Department’s case regarding suspicious transportation. The Court further observed that the petitioner had disowned ownership of the goods in his recorded statement, and the allegation of coercion involved disputed questions of fact which could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction at the investigation stage.

The Court also noted that the detention order in Form GST MOV-06 had been affixed on the vehicle and on the notice board of the enforcement office and that extension of time for inspection had been lawfully granted. Accordingly, the Court upheld the detention proceedings and dismissed the writ petition while leaving statutory remedies open to the petitioner.