^®
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. |

NANCY TRADING COMPANY vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
(Allahabad High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

PIYUSH AGRAWAL

Pet. Counsel

Arjit Gupta

Manish Gupta

Naveen Chandra Gupta

Res. Counsel

C.s.c.

Petitioner / Applicant	NANCY TRADING COMPANY
Respondent	STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
Court	Allahabad High Court
State	Uttar Pradesh
Date	Jul 15, 2024
Order No.	Writ Tax No. - 892 of 2023
Citation	2024(7) TAXREPLY 10303
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
ORDER HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri N.C.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuing a direction for quashing the order dated 26.12.2022 passed by respondent no.4 by which penalty has been imposed as well as the appellate order dated 26.5.2023 passed by respondent no.3 confirming the order dated 26.12.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the goods in question were in transit along with tax invoice, GR's, E waybills. The said goods were detained on the ground that E Tax Invoice was not generated as per Rule 48 of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short the Rules). He further submits that as per Rule 138A of the Rules there is no provision for carrying E Tax Invoice, hence it was not correct on the part of the authorities to seize the goods and pass the impugned orders against the petitioner. ....