Mandatory e-way bill Part-B compliance for long-distance goods movement justified detention and penalty under GST law.

For substantial inter-State movement of goods, updating Part-B of the e-way bill, including conveyance details, was treated as a mandatory compliance requirement under the GST framework. The Court found that the transporter or consignor had to ensure the prescribed procedure was completed before further movement, and the admitted failure to update Part-B amounted to a statutory violation. A bare plea of technical error was not accepted because no contemporaneous grievance or supporting material was produced. Distinguishing precedent involving short-distance movement, the Court upheld detention and penalty as justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-updation of Part-B of the e-way bill in respect of a long-distance movement of goods justified detention and penalty under the goods and services tax law.

Analysis: The movement of goods was for a substantial distance, making Part-B particulars of the e-way bill, including conveyance details, a mandatory requirement before further movement. The relevant statutory framework required the transporter or consignor to ensure compliance with the prescribed e-way bill procedure. The record showed that Part-B was not updated, and the plea of technical error was not accepted in the absence of a contemporaneous grievance or other supporting material. The Court distinguished the cited precedent on the ground that it related to a short-distance movement where the obligation was materially different.

Conclusion: The detention and penalty were held to be justified, and the challenge was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute makes e-way bill particulars mandatory for inter-state movement of goods over a substantial distance, failure to update Part-B constitutes a statutory violation warranting detention and penalty, and a bare plea of technical error does not by itself invalidate the action.

---