^®
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. |

MUKAND LAL REOTI PRASAD vs. STATE OF UP AND OTHERS
(Allahabad High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

PANKAJ BHATIA

Pet. Counsel

Shubham Agrawal

Res. Counsel

C.s.c

Petitioner / Applicant	MUKAND LAL REOTI PRASAD
Respondent	STATE OF UP AND OTHERS
Court	Allahabad High Court
State	Uttar Pradesh
Date	Nov 25, 2020
Order No.	Writ Tax No. - 637 of 2020
Citation	2020(11) TAXREPLY 3548
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

AA |

ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.11.2019, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed without hearing the counsel for the appellant. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a trader/seller of Bidi and had purchased the Bidi from M/s J.P. Tobacco Products Private Limited against Tax invoice and E-way bill dated 5.2.2019. The petitioner claims to have sold the said Bidi to 9 different registered dealers against 9 Tax invoices, all dated 9.2.2019, wherein the value of each Tax invoices was less than 50,000/-. The goods in question were intercepted on 9.2.2019 and a detention order dated 11.2.2019 was passed merely on the ground that the goods were not accompanied by the relevant E-way bills. The ground of the petitioner was that there was no requirement of E-way bill as the invoice demand was less than 50,000/- and further it was on account of sheer inadvertence that the driver did not carry the ....