https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760931 An expired e-way bill that was not extended within the time permitted under Rule 138(10) of the RGST/CGST Rules, 2017 supported detention of the vehicle and related orders. The court found that the e-way bills had remained valid only until 31.12.2022, the vehicle was seized after expiry, and no timely extension was sought within the prescribed eight-hour window. The explanation of vehicle breakdown was rejected because the stated location and travel claim were inconsistent with the asserted ability to reach Noida within the validity period. The challenge to the detention and consequential relief failed, and no refund was warranted. en-us Wed, 28 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 May 2025 09:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760931 An expired e-way bill that was not extended within the time permitted under Rule 138(10) of the RGST/CGST Rules, 2017 supported detention of the vehicle and related orders. The court found that the e-way bills had remained valid only until 31.12.2022, the vehicle was seized after expiry, and no timely extension was sought within the prescribed eight-hour window. The explanation of vehicle breakdown was rejected because the stated location and travel claim were inconsistent with the asserted ability to reach Noida within the validity period. The challenge to the detention and consequential relief failed, and no refund was warranted. Case-Laws GST Wed, 28 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760931