https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767034 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. en-us Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Nov 2025 14:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767034 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. Case-Laws GST Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767034