Login | Register
GST Library
TaxReply Support
YouTube Videos
Twitter
Buy Premium Tax Domains
About Us
Contact Us
Our Services
TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

KRISHNA ENTERPRISES vs. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
(Allahabad High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

PANKAJ MITHAL
JAYANT BANERJI
Pet. Counsel
Aditya Pandey
Res. Counsel
C.s.c

Petitioner / Applicant

KRISHNA ENTERPRISES
Respondent STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
Court Allahabad High Court
State

Uttar Pradesh

Date Jun 5, 2018
Order No.

WRIT TAX No. 904 of 2018

Citation

2018(6) TAXREPLY 2889
Add to Favorites Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

TaxGPT Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
  AA   |   Print

ORDER

Heard Shri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State-respondents. The goods of the petitioner under transportation along with the vehicle have been seized vide order dated 08.05.2018 passed under Section 129(1) of U.P.G.S.T Act, 2017 (herein after referred to as the 'Act, 2017'). The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the goods can only be seized if there is violation of provisions of the Act, 2017. The seizure order does not disclose the specific provision of law which has been violated in transporting the goods. Moreover the mandatory directions of the circulars have not been followed in passing the seizure order. Learned Standing Counsel may seek instructions in the matter and file counter affidavit within a month. The petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit, if any, within two weeks thereafter. List for admission/final disposal on the expiry of the aforesaid p....

Premium Content !

This is premium content of TaxReply, available to paid subscribers only.

Kindly Subscribe GST Library to unlock all features.
View Subscription Plans
Download Full Judgement :
29
Apr
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
30 Apr

☑ Quarterly | QRMP

Last date for opt-in / opt-out QRMP Scheme for quarter Apr - June 2025 (Rule 61A)