^®
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. |

M/S. SAME DEUTZFAHR INDIA P LTD vs. STATE OF TELANGANA
(Telangana High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
T.AMARNATH GOUD

Pet. Counsel

Vedula Srinivas

Res. Counsel

Government Pleader

Petitioner / Applicant	M/S. SAME DEUTZFAHR INDIA P LTD
Respondent	STATE OF TELANGANA
Court	Telangana High Court
State	Telangana
Date	Sep 23, 2020
Order No.	Writ Petition No.13392 of 2020
Citation	2020(9) TAXREPLY 3372
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

Related Tags :

☍

Section 129

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

AA |

ORDER
The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of tractors and their spares. Its Corporate Office is located in Tamil Nadu State and it has got Depots at different places in the country. 2. Registration certificate issued to the petitioner by the State of Telangana shows that its principal place of business is Hayathnagar and it has also additional place of business at Bongulur village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal. 3. The petitioner dispatched 4 tractors to its Depot at Hyderabad under consignment dt.03-03-2020 and also issued e.way bill bearing No.541172396402 on the same day. The name of the consignor and consignee is the same and the address of the consignee is shown at Hayathnagar. 4. The 3rd respondent, however, detained the lorry bearing No.TN52W9857 on 05.03.2020 at 8.20 a.m. on the ground that there was mismatch between the goods in movement and documents tendered and that there is also mismatch between e.way bill and goods in movement. He also endor....