Fresh e-way bill and tax-paid goods defeated detention and demand under the wrong statutory provision.

Detention for expiry of an earlier e-way bill was unsustainable because a fresh e-way bill had been generated before the detention order, so the consignment was not requisite document at the relevant time. The demand also failed because the authority invoked the provision applicable to non-tax-paid goods, while the materials showed the goods were tax paid. The wrong statutory footing rendered the proceedings legally unsustainable, and the detention and demand were quashed with release maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether detention and consequent demand were sustainable when a fresh e-way bill had been generated before the detention order; (ii) Whether the proceedings could be sustained under the provision applicable to non-tax-paid goods when the consignment was tax paid.

Issue (i): Whether detention and consequent demand were sustainable when a fresh e-way bill had been generated before the detention order.

Analysis: The goods were being transported with an e-way bill that had initially expired, but a fresh e-way bill was generated on 26.04.2019 before the detention order dated 27.04.2019. The governing rules permitted extension or validation of the e-way bill through the prescribed mechanism, and there was no prohibition against such generation on expiry. Once the authority itself recorded the fresh generation, the goods were not being carried without the requisite document at the time the detention order was passed.

Conclusion: The detention and the demand based on expiry of the earlier e-way bill were not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings could be sustained under the provision applicable to non-tax-paid goods when the consignment was tax paid.

Analysis: The demand was raised by applying the provision dealing with goods on which tax had not been paid. The materials showed that the goods were tax paid, so the case, if at all, fell within the provision applicable to tax-paid goods. The authority proceeded on the wrong statutory footing, which rendered the demand legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The proceedings could not be sustained under the provision applied by the authority.

Final Conclusion: The impugned detention and demand were quashed, and the writ petition was allowed with the release order maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a valid e-way bill is generated before the detention order and the consignment is tax paid, detention and penalty cannot be sustained by invoking the provision meant for non-tax-paid goods.

---