Complete e-way bill required before movement; post-interception compliance did not defeat the presumption of tax evasion.

After the April 2018 amendment to the Uttar Pradesh GST Rules, movement of goods required a complete e-way bill before transit began. Interception without Part B or with incorrect transit particulars could support a rebuttable presumption of intent to evade tax, and later generation of missing details did not by itself cure the defect. On the facts noted, Part B was generated only after interception and one e-way bill showed a different route from the actual movement. The penalty under section 129(3) was therefore sustained, and the challenge to the detention and appellate orders failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complete e-way bill was mandatory for movement of goods after the 14th amendment to the Uttar Pradesh GST Rules, 2017, and whether non-furnishing of Part B along with incorrect transit particulars justified penalty under section 129(3).

Analysis: After the amendment effective from 01.04.2018, movement of goods required a complete e-way bill before commencement of transit. Where goods are intercepted without the required e-way bill particulars, a presumption of intention to evade tax may arise, though it is rebuttable on proper materials. The petitioner's documents showed that Part B was generated only after interception and one e-way bill reflected a different route from that actually undertaken. Such post-interception compliance did not displace the presumption of evasion, and the reliance on earlier decisions was held distinguishable because those related to the pre-April 2018 regime.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 129(3) was upheld, and the challenge to the detention and appellate orders failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was held not to merit interference because the goods were not accompanied by a complete e-way bill at the time of interception and the circumstances supported the statutory presumption of tax evasion.

Ratio Decidendi: After the April 2018 amendment, carriage of goods without a complete e-way bill before commencement of movement can justify a rebuttable presumption of evasion, and subsequent generation of the missing particulars does not by itself negate liability under section 129(3).

---