https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756743 A detention order under Section 129 could not be sustained where the alleged discrepancy was a bona fide mistake, the physical invoice matched the e-invoice, and the relevant documents were produced at interception. On those facts, there was no factual basis to infer an intention to evade tax, which was necessary to support the penalty action. The High Court therefore quashed the impugned order and directed release of the vehicle and goods. en-us Thu, 01 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 May 2025 10:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756743 A detention order under Section 129 could not be sustained where the alleged discrepancy was a bona fide mistake, the physical invoice matched the e-invoice, and the relevant documents were produced at interception. On those facts, there was no factual basis to infer an intention to evade tax, which was necessary to support the penalty action. The High Court therefore quashed the impugned order and directed release of the vehicle and goods. Case-Laws GST Thu, 01 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756743