By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 19 February 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice
About this article: A general explainer prepared by S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors on a recurring type of dispute. It does not report a specific judgment or order, names no parties and gives no case citation, so it should not be cited as authority. Law and practice change; please verify against the current statute and primary sources before relying on it.
Under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, goods in transit that are not accompanied by the required documents, including a valid e-way bill, can be detained, and release depends on payment of tax and penalty at the rates the section prescribes. An e-way bill has a limited validity based on the distance to be covered, so delays in transit can cause it to expire.
Taxpayers often argue that where the invoice, the e-way bill generated before the journey and other particulars all match the consignment, and the delay is explained and corroborated, for example by a breakdown report, toll records or GPS logs, the lapse is a minor procedural one and not an attempt to evade tax. Courts and appellate authorities have in several cases reduced or set aside penalties on that reasoning, and the CBIC has issued circulars on minor technical errors, which should be checked for the period in question.
The result varies with the facts and the authority. Where there is a real discrepancy in the goods, the invoice or the route, the position is less favourable. Whether Section 129 or the stricter Section 130 applies depends on the allegation of intent to evade.