https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769143 After the Uttar Pradesh GST Rules amendment made e-way bill compliance mandatory, movement of goods without a valid e-way bill could justify detention and penalty. Where one consignment was carried in a vehicle different from the vehicle entered in Part B of the e-way bill, and another e-way bill had expired before interception, the authorities were entitled to invoke the detention and penalty provisions. The court treated non-compliance as raising a rebuttable presumption of intent to evade tax, and held that later production of documents did not by itself cure the defect. The challenge to the penalty and appellate order therefore failed. en-us Tue, 15 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Apr 2025 08:32:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769143 After the Uttar Pradesh GST Rules amendment made e-way bill compliance mandatory, movement of goods without a valid e-way bill could justify detention and penalty. Where one consignment was carried in a vehicle different from the vehicle entered in Part B of the e-way bill, and another e-way bill had expired before interception, the authorities were entitled to invoke the detention and penalty provisions. The court treated non-compliance as raising a rebuttable presumption of intent to evade tax, and held that later production of documents did not by itself cure the defect. The challenge to the penalty and appellate order therefore failed. Case-Laws GST Tue, 15 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769143