Requirement of Transaction Decleration Form (TDF) with E-way bill Facts involved : Petitioner-consignor in pursuance of an order issued to it for supply of 1936 Units of Biscuits for the consignee booked the consignments through Ajay Road Lines, Gwalior (M.P.) which were being transported on vehicle No. HR-55 S-7077 and Challan No.6037 dated 21.03.2018 was generated. The consignments were duly accompanied by E-way Bill from the web portal of the Central Government containing the details of the consignor, consignee, challan number and other requisite documents having validity upto 28.03.2018. However, the Transaction Declaration Form (T.D.F.) was not attached with the consignments. The goods were being moved from Gwalior (M.P.) to Zirkpur (Punjab). Issue involved : While the vehicle was passing through State of U.P. (Agra), it was intercepted by the respondent no. 2 on 23.03.2018 at around at 8-30 a.m. and an interception memo was drawn and the vehicle was seized on the ground that the goods loaded on the vehicle were being transported from the State of U.P. to outside the State of U.P. but while passing the vehicle outside the State of U.P. was without having any T.D.F. and thus, the consignment is needed physical verification. Physical verification of the consignment was carried out on the same date i.e. on 23.03.2018 at around 04-00 p.m. and when no irregularity was detected, only on the basis of the non-availability of T.D.F., the goods were seized and penalty notice under Section 129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax, Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2017') was issued. Legal Position : After amendment of C.G.S.T. Rules, 2017 on 30.08.2017, vide another notification dated 29.12.2017 containing the E-way Bill system which was to come into force w.e.f. 01.02.2018, the notification dated 29.12.2017 requiring T.D.F. to accompany with the consignor was rescinded and, therefore, no T.D.F. was required. Held : After amendment of C.G.S.T. Rules, it was clear that there is no requirement of TDF instead of facts that goods were being taken from Uttarakhand to W.B. Furthermore, we find that along with the consignment of goods the driver was carrying an invoice which mentioned that the goods were being taken from the State of Uttarakhand to the State of West Bengal, therefore, as of now, it was an inter-State trade and there is nothing on record to show otherwise. The assertion that I.G.S.T. had already been paid, has also not been denied by the opposite parties nor that both the consignor and consignee are registered dealers. Moreover, the requisite details having been mentioned in the invoice etc. the same would be verified at the point of destination and accordingly the matter would be scrutinized as regards the liability of Tax. The notification dated 21.7.2017 issued by the State Government under Rule 138 of the U.P.G.S.T. Rules 2017 made under section 164 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017 was clearly inapplicable for the reasons already mentioned earlier. There was no intent to evade tax."