E-transit pass absence does not defeat genuine goods movement when reliable evidence proves the transaction and refund follows.

Where goods were detained for absence of a Form LL e-transit pass, the decisive question was whether the movement of goods was otherwise proved by reliable documents and by the authority's own finding that the transaction was genuine. The accompanying circular recognised that actual cross-border movement established by legally valid evidence should not be defeated by the mere absence of a transit pass, although repeated violations may be treated differently. On those facts, the collection of tax and penalty was held unjustified, the impugned orders were quashed, and refund was directed without interest.

---

---

Issues: Whether tax and penalty collected for alleged non-accompaniment of the e-transit pass could be quashed and refunded when the underlying transaction was found to be genuine.

Analysis: The goods were detained for want of the requisite Form LL transit pass, but the dealer produced documents to establish the movement and the competent authority had already recorded that the transaction was genuine. The departmental circular also recognised that, where legally valid and reliable evidence shows actual cross-border movement of goods, the absence of a transit pass by itself should not defeat the claim, though repeated violations may stand on a different footing. In these circumstances, the collection of tax and penalty was not justified on the facts found by the authority.

Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned orders were quashed, and refund of tax and penalty was directed without interest.

---