E-way bill misuse allegations failed for lack of proof; seizure and penalty orders were quashed.

Under the State GST regime, detention and penalty for alleged double movement of goods could not be sustained where the authorities failed to produce reliable documentary proof that the same invoice and e-way bill were used twice. The alleged driver statement was not shown in primary form, and later supplied papers had limited evidentiary value, so no presumption of wrongdoing could arise from the allegation alone. The authorities also did not establish mens rea for tax evasion. The seizure, penalty and appellate orders were therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure, penalty and appellate orders could be sustained on the allegation of double movement of goods without adequate documentary material and proof.

Analysis: The challenge arose from detention and penalty proceedings under the State GST regime. The decisive question was whether the authorities had discharged the burden of proving that the goods had actually been moved twice on the basis of the same invoice and e-way bill. The record did not show that the primary document recording the driver's statement was produced, and the paper supplied later had little evidentiary value. In the absence of reliable material, no legal presumption of wrongdoing could be drawn merely from the allegation of repeated use of the e-way bill. The authorities also failed to establish any mens rea for tax evasion.

Conclusion: The seizure, penalty and appellate orders were unsustainable and were quashed.

---