Singh Tyres Versus State of U.P. And Another
GST
2018 (10) TMI 1236 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (17) G. S. T. L. 377 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 2-4-2018
WRIT TAX No. – 552 of 2018
GST
Mr Krishna Murari And Mr Ashok Kumar, JJ.
\nFor The Petitioner : Amit Mahajan, Niraj Kumar Singh
\nFor The Respondent : C.S.C.
\nORDER
\nHeard Sri Amit Mahajan and Sri Niraj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Special counsel for the State respondents.
\nThe petitioner is a registered proprietorship firm and is engaged in trading of various kind of tyres and tubes. The petitioner has purchased tyres and tubes from Apollo Tyres Ltd., Kanpur (U.P.).
\nThe claim of the petitioner is that <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n pted the goods on 27.03.2018 and has issued a notice\/detention memo under Section 129(1) of the Act. In the said notice while mentioning the date respondent no. 2 has also mentioned time being 7-30 a.m. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n he relevant documents on 28.03.2018, whereas the order has been passed on a day before the date allowed by the respondent no. 2. We have also noticed that while passing the impugned order dated 27.03.2018 no time has been mentioned by the respondent no. 2 whereas while issuing notice\/detention memo he has specifically mentioned the time. This clearly goes to show the ill intention on the part of the respondent no. 2. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Singh Tyres Versus State of U.P. And AnotherGST2018 (10) TMI 1236 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (17) G. S. T. L. 377 (All.)ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 2-4-2018WRIT TAX No. – 552 of 2018 GSTMr Krishna Murari And Mr Ashok Kumar, JJ. For The Petitioner : Amit Mahajan, Niraj Kumar Singh For The Respondent … Continue reading “Singh Tyres Versus State of U.P. And Another”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14610","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14610","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14610"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14610\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14610"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14610"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14610"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nThe petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent no. 2 on 28.03.2018 at 11-00 a.m. in his office. According to the petitioner, he was not aware about the requirement of E-Way Bill for the purposes of transportation of goods from one place to another place within the State of U.P..
\nThe claim of the petitioner is that he has down loaded the EWay Bill on 27.03.2018 from the official department portal. The said E-Way Bill has been down loaded on 27.03.2018 at 9-39 p.m. The claim of the petitioner is that the said E-Way Bill has been<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nFrom perusal of the record, we find that the goods were transported from one place to another within the State of U.P. and were accompanied by the requisite documents and requisite E-Way Bill has also been produced by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2 before the date fixed for reply. In view of the aforesaid fact, we <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n