E-waybill detention was invalid where goods were moved between own units without any sale or purchase transaction.

Detention of goods under the Andhra Pradesh VAT framework was held unjustified where the movement was not in connection with any sale or purchase transaction. Section 45 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 permits interception and detention to prevent tax evasion only when the goods are linked to a transaction not properly accounted for, and Rule 55 on e-waybills operates in aid of that same object. On the admitted facts, a machine was transferred by the assessee from its Telangana unit to its Andhra Pradesh unit for erection, free of charge, without any sale or purchase. As that statutory condition was absent, insistence on an Andhra Pradesh e-waybill and detention of the goods were illegal and unauthorised.

---

---

Issues: Whether detention of goods for non-generation of Andhra Pradesh e-waybill was lawful when the movement of goods was not in pursuance of any sale or purchase transaction.

Analysis: Section 45 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 empowers interception and detention of goods to prevent evasion of tax where the movement of goods is connected with a sale or purchase transaction and the documents do not properly account for that transaction. Rule 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, as amended, requires generation of an e-waybill for import into or movement of the State, but it operates in aid of the same statutory object. On the admitted facts, the goods were a machine transferred by the assessee from its unit in Telangana to its own unit in Andhra Pradesh for erection, free of charge, with no sale or purchase involved. In such circumstances, the statutory condition for invoking detention and insistence on the Andhra Pradesh e-waybill was absent.

Conclusion: The detention of goods was illegal and unauthorised, and the assessee was entitled to relief.

---