The HC dismissed the petition and upheld the detention and seizure order of goods where no e-way bill was produced prior to commencement of movement; subsequent generation of the e-way bill after interception did not cure the defect. The court held that non-production of the e-way bill at the relevant time justified detention and seizure under the statutory scheme, and interference was unwarranted. The decision follows controlling Division Bench precedent that absence of an e-way bill at the time of interception renders seizure proceedings valid irrespective of asserted technical glitches or subsequent belated generation, so the challenge to the seizure failed and the petition was dismissed.
The HC dismissed the petition and upheld the detention and seizure order of goods where no e-way bill was produced prior to commencement of movement; subsequent generation of the e-way bill after interception did not cure the defect. The court held that non-production of the e-way bill at the relevant time justified detention and seizure under the statutory scheme, and interference was unwarranted. The decision follows controlling Division Bench precedent that absence of an e-way bill at the time of interception renders seizure proceedings valid irrespective of asserted technical glitches or subsequent belated generation, so the challenge to the seizure failed and the petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
