Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit — The petitioner challenged the demand/penalty order dated 18.04.2018 passed by the respondent no.1 as well as the appellate order dated 14.05.2019 passed by the respondent no.2.  The respondent detained the vehicle on the ground that the e-way bill was incomplete as Part- B of the e-way bill was not available. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the error in not filling the form in part B of the e-way bill was on account of the technical glitch which itself was realized by the department who had issued the Circular dated 18.03.2018. The court observed that there is no allegation that the goods being transported were being transported without payment of tax. The explanation offered by the petitioner for not filling the Part-B of e-way bill, is clearly supported by the Circulars. Prima-facie no intent to evade the duty can be ascertained. The court relied upon the judgment dated 13.04.2018 in the case of VSL Alloys India Pvt. Ltd.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned order dated 18.04.2018 and the appellate order dated 14.05.2019 and directed the respondents to refund the amount collected and paid by the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned order within a period of two months.