Bona fide invoice mismatch and no intent to evade tax defeated detention and penalty under Section 129.

A detention order under Section 129 could not be sustained where the alleged discrepancy was a bona fide mistake, the physical invoice matched the e-invoice, and the relevant documents were produced at interception. On those facts, there was no factual basis to infer an intention to evade tax, which was necessary to support the penalty action. The High Court therefore quashed the impugned order and directed release of the vehicle and goods.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order passed under Section 129 could be sustained when the alleged discrepancy was a bona fide mistake, the invoice tallied with the e-invoice, and there was no factual basis to infer intention to evade tax.

Analysis: The factual matrix showed that the physical invoice corresponded with the e-invoice and the relevant documents had been produced at the time of interception, except for the e-invoice which was generated and submitted on the same day. On these facts, the material before the authority did not support a finding of intention to evade tax. In the absence of such a finding, the penalty action taken under the detention provision could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and a direction was issued for release of the vehicle and goods within two weeks.

---