M/S VST & Sons Pvt. Ltd. and Muthukumar Meenakshy filed a writ petition with single bench of  Kerala HC, challenging the detention of the ‘RANGE ROVER’ motor vehicle belonging to them while being transported from Coimbatore to Thiruvananthapuram as ‘used personal effects’. The single bench decided in their favour. Against this decision the GST authorities filed a writ appeal with the Division bench.The only reason stated for detaining the goods was that it was transported without the e-way bill. It is pertinent to mention that goods that are classifiable as used personal and household effect falls under Rule 138(14) (a) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and are exempted from the requirement of e-way bill. 
The 2nd respondent had purchased the vehicle after payment of IGST. A temporary registration was also taken apart from the motor vehicle insurance. The vehicle was entrusted for transportation from Coimbatore to Thiruvananthapuram instead of driving the same across the State borders. The vehicle had in fact run 43 Kms. but during transportation, the vehicle was detained for the reason of non-generation of e-way bill.
While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge relied upon the decision in KUN Motor Company Private Limited and Others v. the Assistant State Tax Officer, Squad No.3 Kerala State, Goods and Service Tax Department and Others
The court said that “We do not understand how the State could take a contention that if the car had been driven into the State of Kerala from the U.T. of Puduchery; then there could not have been a detention under Section 129, since then there would have been no question of uploading of e-way bill. We cannot also comprehend how an intra-State sale would be converted to an inter-State sale merely for reasons of it being transported in carriage.
The said decision held that used vehicles, even if it has run only negligible distances are to be categorized as ‘used personal effects’. We are in respectful agreement with the observations of this Court in the aforesaid decision. The facts in the present appeal are similar if not almost identical to the facts in the above referred decision, except for the change in place from Puduchery to Coimbatore.In the circumstances, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.