https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768896 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. en-us Thu, 10 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Apr 2025 08:35:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768896 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. Case-Laws GST Thu, 10 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768896