JUDGMENT Ajay Bhanot, J. Heard Shri. Deepak Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order imposing penalty in proceedings taken out under Section 129 of the GST Act. In the impugned order passed by the initial authority dated 31.01.2023 and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 18.10.2023, the authorities below have found that the petitioner was not in possession of a valid E-Way Bill while transporting the goods. 3. The E-Way Bill is a mandatory requirement under Rule 138A of the GST Rules. Transporting the goods without possession in the absence of E-Way Bill constitutes a contravention of the provisions of the GST Act. The authorities have further found that the E-Way Bill which was later produced was infact generated after the interception of the vehicle by the revenue authority. The said E-Way Bill was rejected as it was found to be an attempt to post facto rationalize the illicit transportation of goods. The aforesaid findings have not been assailed before the initial authority in the show cause notice or in the memo of appeal or even in the Writ petition. 4. In this wake, the Writ petition (tax) is dismissed.