https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434672 An e-way bill carrying Part-B vehicle and transporter details raised a presumption that goods were meant for movement, and cancellation was available only if movement had not commenced under Rule 138(9), subject to the bar after transit verification under Rule 138-B. On the facts, the record showed the same vehicle being used for multiple consignments during the relevant period, and the explanation for delayed movement was found inconsistent. The authorities' view that the e-way bill mechanism had been misused and that the transaction pattern indicated evasion was upheld, so detention, seizure and the consequential penalty were sustained. en-us Mon, 27 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Apr 2025 16:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434672 An e-way bill carrying Part-B vehicle and transporter details raised a presumption that goods were meant for movement, and cancellation was available only if movement had not commenced under Rule 138(9), subject to the bar after transit verification under Rule 138-B. On the facts, the record showed the same vehicle being used for multiple consignments during the relevant period, and the explanation for delayed movement was found inconsistent. The authorities' view that the e-way bill mechanism had been misused and that the transaction pattern indicated evasion was upheld, so detention, seizure and the consequential penalty were sustained. Case-Laws GST Mon, 27 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434672