E-way bill procedural lapse without tax-evasion intent cannot sustain full detention penalty, though a nominal documentation penalty may remain.

A mere procedural lapse in e-way bill documentation, without evidence of intent to evade tax, does not justify detention-based tax and penalty under Section 129(3). Here, Part-B of the e-way bill was completed before the detention memo, and the record did not show mala fide conduct or conscious disregard of the statutory requirement, so the full tax-and-penalty demand was set aside. However, the incorrect particulars in the documents still amounted to a lesser contravention, and a nominal penalty for defective documentation was upheld under Section 125.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tax and penalty imposed under Section 129(3) on account of non-filling of Part-B of the e-way bill and alleged contravention in transit were sustainable. (ii) Whether a nominal penalty under Section 125 was warranted for incorrect particulars in the documents.

Issue (i): Whether the tax and penalty imposed under Section 129(3) on account of non-filling of Part-B of the e-way bill and alleged contravention in transit were sustainable.

Analysis: The detention arose from interception of the vehicle and the finding that Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled at the time of movement. The record showed that the relevant particulars were subsequently completed before the detention memo was issued, and there was no material indicating an attempt to evade tax. The order also proceeded mechanically on a procedural lapse, without establishing any mala fide intention or conscious disregard of the statutory obligation. Applying the principle that penalty for breach of a statutory obligation is not ordinarily to be imposed for a mere technical or venial breach, the invocation of the full tax-and-penalty demand under Section 129(3) was held to be unsustainable.

Conclusion: The tax and penalty demand under Section 129(3) was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a nominal penalty under Section 125 was warranted for incorrect particulars in the documents.

Analysis: Although the demand under Section 129(3) was not sustained, the documents did not contain the proper particulars in the e-way bill at the relevant time. That lapse constituted a lesser contravention attracting a limited penal consequence distinct from the transit detention demand. The authority therefore sustained a small penalty for the defective documentation.

Conclusion: The nominal penalty under Section 125 was upheld against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent of deleting the tax and penalty demand under Section 129(3), but the limited penalty for defective e-way bill particulars was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere procedural lapse in e-way bill documentation, without proof of intent to evade tax, does not justify the full detention-based tax and penalty consequence, though a limited penalty may still be imposed for incorrect particulars.

---