E-way bill Part-B omission alone cannot justify GST detention or penalty when transport documents are otherwise complete.

Mere non-generation of Part-B of an e-way bill does not, by itself, justify detention or penalty where the goods are supported by a tax invoice, lorry receipt and e-way bill, and there is no material suggesting tax evasion. The binding view applied was that no adverse inference can be drawn from that omission alone. On the facts noted, the detention and consequential penalty were unsustainable because the impugned action rested only on the Part-B defect without any independent evidence of evasion.

---

---

Issues: Whether detention and consequential penalty were sustainable where the goods were accompanied by tax invoice, lorry receipt and e-way bill, but Part-B of the e-way bill had not been generated.

Analysis: The goods were found in transit with the prescribed documents, and the only deficiency was non-filling of Part-B of the e-way bill. The issue was covered by the binding view that no adverse inference can be drawn merely from non-filing of Part-B, and the record did not support an inference of tax evasion. The impugned orders proceeded on an unsustainable foundation in light of that principle.

Conclusion: The detention and penalty could not be sustained solely on account of the omission to generate Part-B of the e-way bill, and the assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere non-filing of Part-B of an e-way bill, when the goods are otherwise accompanied by the requisite documents and there is no material indicating tax evasion, does not by itself justify adverse action under the GST law.

---