^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

K.Y. TOBACCO WORKS PVT. LTD. vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
(Allahabad High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SHEKHAR B. SARAF

Pet. Counsel

Pooja Talwar

Res. Counsel

A.s.g.i.

Petitioner / Applicant	K.Y. TOBACCO WORKS PVT. LTD.
Respondent	STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
Court	Allahabad High Court
State	Uttar Pradesh
Date	May 13, 2024
Order No.	WRIT TAX No. 574 of 2019
Citation	2024(5) TAXREPLY 9736
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
1. Heard Mrs. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the seizure order dated August 13, 2018, the order dated August 14, 2024 imposing penalty under Section 129 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the appellate order dated January 8, 2019. 3. Mrs. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relevant documents were present in the vehicle and the goods matched invoice and the e-way bill. The sole ground on which the goods were detained and seized and penalty order was passed, was the statement supposedly given by the Driver of the vehicle who submitted that he was transporting the goods for the second time with the same documents. She further submitted that the primary documents being MOV-01 wherein the statement ....