Expired E-Way Bill Due to Vehicle Breakdown Not Grounds for Goods Detention Under GST Rules

The HC set aside both the appellate Commissioner's order and the adjudicating authority's order that had confirmed detention of goods due to an expired e-way bill. The court found that respondents failed to establish that the violation was willful or deliberate, accepting the petitioner's explanation that the delay in renewal resulted from vehicle breakdown rather than tax evasion intent. The petitioner was granted refund of penalty and tax paid under protest, subject to compliance with legal formalities.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order of appellate Commissioner confirming detention of goods due to expired e-way bill.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order of the appellate Commissioner, which confirmed the original order passed by the adjudicating authority for the detention of goods due to an expired e-way bill. The e-way bill related to the consignment had expired one day before the detention of goods, and the petitioner argued that the delay in renewal was due to a breakdown of the vehicle, not deliberate tax evasion. The petitioner cited an unreported decision of the Supreme Court in support of their contention.

The respondent failed to establish that the violation was willful or deliberate, or that the petitioner intended to evade tax. After considering the submissions and circumstances of the case, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside both the appellate authority's order and the adjudicating authority's order. As a result, the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the penalty and tax paid on protest, subject to compliance with all legal formalities.

---