TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the detention and levy of tax and penalty were justified on the ground that the consignment was moved without generation of Part B of the e-way bill, rendering the e-way bill invalid under the GST framework.
Analysis: Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 permits detention or seizure where goods are transported in contravention of the Act or the rules, and Rule 138 of the M.P. Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 requires a registered person causing movement of goods above the prescribed value to furnish Part A before movement and, where the goods are transported by road, to generate the e-way bill after furnishing Part B. The record showed that the Part A slip itself stated that it was not valid for movement until Part B was entered. On that basis, the absence of Part B was treated as a substantive violation and not a mere technical lapse.
Conclusion: The detention, demand of IGST and equal penalty were upheld, and the challenge to the impugned order failed.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed because movement of the goods without Part B of the e-way bill amounted to a statutory breach justifying the impugned action.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the GST rules make generation of Part B essential for a valid e-way bill for road transport, movement of goods without Part B constitutes a contravention sufficient to sustain detention and consequential tax and penalty under the detention provision.
TaxTMI 
