{"id":15006,"date":"2018-11-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-11-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2018-11-14T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2018-11-13T18:30:00","slug":"sidhi-vinayak-agencies-and-another-versus-state-of-u-p-and-2-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/?p=15006","title":{"rendered":"Sidhi Vinayak Agencies And Another Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Sidhi Vinayak Agencies And Another Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others<br \/>GST<br \/>2018 (11) TMI 710 &#8211; ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT &#8211; TMI<br \/>ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT &#8211; HC<br \/>Dated:- 14-11-2018<br \/>Writ Tax No. &#8211; 1449 of 2018 <br \/>GST<br \/>Pankaj Mithal And Ashok Kumar JJ.<br \/>\nFor the Petitioner : Shubham Agrawal<br \/>\nFor the Respondent : C.S.C.<br \/>\nORDER<br \/>\nHeard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents .<br \/>\nThe petitioners are the selling and purchasing dealers of the goods in transit. The goods have been seized on account of the fact that a proper E-way bill was not accompanying the goods.<br \/>\nThe submission of Sri Agrawal is that the E-way bill was generated on 2.11.2018 much before the inte<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong><BR>For full text:-<a href=\"https:\/\/www.taxtmi.com\/caselaws?id=370367\">Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Sidhi Vinayak Agencies And Another Versus State Of U.P. And 2 OthersGST2018 (11) TMI 710 &#8211; ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT &#8211; TMIALLAHABAD HIGH COURT &#8211; HCDated:- 14-11-2018Writ Tax No. &#8211; 1449 of 2018 GSTPankaj Mithal And Ashok Kumar JJ. For the Petitioner : Shubham Agrawal For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/?p=15006\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Sidhi Vinayak Agencies And Another Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others&#8221;<\/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-15006","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15006","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=15006"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15006\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15006"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15006"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15006"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}