As per case facts, a group of Writ Petitions challenged the respondent-authorities' action of confiscation of goods seized during transit under Section 129 of the CGST Act. Petitioners argued that ... authorities mechanically invoked Section 130 (confiscation) without completing the Section 129 procedure, especially after amendments delinking the two sections and deleting the non-obstante clause from Section 130 while retaining it in Section 129. They contended that intent to evade tax shouldn't be presumed from minor e-way bill defects. The question arose whether the amended Section 129 is a self-contained code that prevents immediate invocation of Section 130. Finally, the Court, relying on a previous judgment, held that Sections 129 and 130 are independent. The non-obstante clause in Section 129 does not prevent Section 130's operation if there's an established "intention to evade payment of tax." Confiscation can be invoked at the threshold for blatant tax evasion, not mere suspicion or minor discrepancies. Matters were remanded for re-examination, directing withdrawal of confiscation notices if contrary to observations and release of goods for minor infringements under Section 129.