E-way bill absence and mismatched goods description justified GST detention and penalty where the presumption of evasion remained unrebutted.

Movement of goods under the Uttar Pradesh GST Rules required an e-way bill, and absence of that document at interception created a rebuttable presumption of intent to evade tax. Later generation or production of the e-way bill did not displace that presumption. The court also noted that the goods were declared at a lower tax rate than the goods found on verification, and the dealer did not effectively rebut the adverse material or participate in the departmental proceedings. On those facts, detention and the consequent penalty were upheld, and no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether detention and penalty under the GST law were valid where the goods were intercepted without an e-way bill, the e-way bill was generated after interception, and the description of the goods declared by the dealer differed from the goods found on verification.

Analysis: After the amendment to the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 effective from 01.04.2018, movement of goods was required to be accompanied by an e-way bill. The absence of the e-way bill at the time of interception gave rise to a rebuttable presumption of intention to evade tax. That presumption was not displaced by later generation or production of the e-way bill. The record also showed that the goods were declared at a lower tax rate while physical verification revealed goods taxable at a higher rate, and the petitioner did not participate in the departmental proceedings or effectively rebut the adverse material, including the service of notice.

Conclusion: The detention and consequent penalty were upheld, and no interference was warranted.

---