E-way bill misuse and delayed movement justified detention, seizure and penalty where records showed inconsistent vehicle use.

An e-way bill carrying Part-B vehicle and transporter details raised a presumption that goods were meant for movement, and cancellation was available only if movement had not commenced under Rule 138(9), subject to the bar after transit verification under Rule 138-B. On the facts, the record showed the same vehicle being used for multiple consignments during the relevant period, and the explanation for delayed movement was found inconsistent. The authorities' view that the e-way bill mechanism had been misused and that the transaction pattern indicated evasion was upheld, so detention, seizure and the consequential penalty were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether detention and seizure of goods, along with penalty, were justified where the e-way bill had been generated with the vehicle and transporter details but the goods were not moved for several days and the e-way bill was not cancelled.

Analysis: The e-way bill, once filled with Part-B details mentioning the transporter and vehicle, created a presumption that the goods were intended for movement. The statutory scheme under Rule 138(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 permitted cancellation of an e-way bill electronically if movement had not commenced, subject to the limitation that cancellation was not available after verification in transit under Rule 138-B. On the facts, the same vehicle was shown to have been used for multiple trips with different consignments during the relevant period, and the explanation that the vehicle was made available only later was found to be inconsistent with the record. The authorities' conclusion that the petitioner had misused the e-way bill mechanism and that the transaction pattern indicated evasion was upheld.

Conclusion: The detention, seizure, and consequential penalty were held to be valid, and the challenge failed.

---