GST detention and penalty sustained where the e-way bill was generated only after interception of goods.

Detention, seizure and penalty under the GST law were upheld where goods were intercepted without an e-way bill at the relevant time and the bill was generated only after interception. The fact that the e-way bill was produced before the final seizure and penalty orders did not cure the initial non-compliance, because the record showed it was not generated immediately upon movement of the goods. The Court treated the matter as covered by the binding Division Bench decision relied on and rejected the writ petitions on merits, finding no ground to interfere with the impugned orders.

---

---

Issues: Whether detention, seizure and penalty under section 129(3) of the GST Act were liable to be interfered with where the e-way bill was generated only after interception of the goods.

Analysis: The goods were intercepted without production of an e-way bill at the relevant time. Although the e-way bill was produced before the seizure and penalty orders were passed, it was found that the bill had not been generated immediately upon movement of the goods and was generated only after interception, as reflected in the record. On those facts, the matter was treated as covered by the binding Division Bench decision relied upon by the Court.

Conclusion: The challenge to the detention, seizure and penalty failed and no interference with the impugned orders was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were rejected on merits because the post-interception generation of the e-way bill did not entitle the petitioner to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an e-way bill is generated only after interception of the goods, the detention and penalty proceedings under the GST law are not vitiated merely because the bill was produced before the final orders.

---