Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Gobind Tobacco Manufacturing Co. ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 17 May, 2022

M/S Balaji Traders And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 6 October, 2023

In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the present case as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, as aforesaid, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.06.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 25.11.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 are hereby quashed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P Agrawal - Full Document

M/S Khan Enterprises vs Additional Commissioner And Another on 4 September, 2023

In support of his contention he has relied upon the the judgments in Writ Tax No. 600 of 2022 (M/s Gobind Tobacco Manufacturing Co. And another vs. State of U.P. And others) decided on 17.5.2022 and in Writ Tax No. 1464 of 2022 (S/S S.K. Trading Co. And another vs. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 (Appeal) and another) decided on 16.3.2023. He further submits that at the time of interception of goods statement of the driver was taken wherein it has been recorded that goods were to be unloaded at Robertganj, U.P. but subsequently some statement was recorded that too was not uploaded on website/ MOV that goods to be uploaded at Ghaziabad and not at Robertsganj, which cannot be relied upon.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P Agrawal - Full Document

M/S Sun Flag Iron And Steel Company ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 November, 2023

In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the present case as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, as aforesaid, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.06.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 25.11.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 are hereby quashed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P Agrawal - Full Document

M/S Creative Lab Situated At 12 vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 28 August, 2024

In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the present case as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, as aforesaid, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.06.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 25.11.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 are hereby quashed."
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P Agrawal - Full Document

M/S Shyam Sel And Power Limited vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 5 October, 2023

In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the present case as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, as aforesaid, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.06.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 25.11.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 are hereby quashed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - P Agrawal - Full Document

M/S Varun Beverages Limited vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 2 February, 2023

Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a case of stock transfer by the dealer from its unit at Gautam Buddha Nagar to sale depot at Agra. The goods which were in transit were accompanied by necessary documents and the e-way bill. The only mistake on the part of the person in-charge who had downloaded the e-way bill was wrong entry of the Vehicle No. UP-13T in place of HR-73. Except this fact the goods were being transported along with all the necessary documents. According to learned counsel, there was no intention to evade the tax on behalf of dealer and reliance has been placed upon decision of the Apex Court in case of Assistant Commissioner (ST) and others vs. M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. and another, 2022 UPTC (110) 269. The said judgment has been relied upon by Division Bench of this Court in case of M/s. Gobind Tobacco Manufacturing Corporation and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2022 UPTC (111) 1080.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R R Agarwal - Full Document

M/S Luminous Power Technologies ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 12 April, 2024

3. Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a case of stock transfer by the dealer from its unit at Saharanpur to sale depot at Ghaziabad. The goods which were in transit were accompanied by necessary documents and the e-way bill. The only mistake on the part of the person in-charge who had downloaded the e-way bill was wrong entry of the Vehicle No.UP-11T/2175 in place of UP-14BT/3276. Except this fact the goods were being transported along with all the necessary documents. According to learned counsel, there was no intention to evade the tax on behalf of dealer and reliance has been placed upon decision of the Apex Court in case of Assistant Commissioner (ST) and others vs. M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. and another, 2022 UPTC (110) 269. The said judgment has been relied upon by Division Bench of this Court in case of M/s. Gobind Tobacco Manufacturing Corporation and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2022 UPTC (111) 1080.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Poddar Tyres Ltd. vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 10 May, 2024

4. Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a case of stock transfer by the dealer from its unit at Ludhiana to sale depot at West Bengal. The goods which were in transit were accompanied by necessary documents and the e-way bill. The only mistake on the part of the person in-charge who had downloaded the e-way bill was wrong entry of the Vehicle No.PB 11 AN 9287 in place of RJ 13 GB 0072. Except this fact the goods were being transported along with all the necessary documents. According to learned counsel, there was no intention to evade the tax on behalf of dealer and reliance has been placed upon decision of the Apex Court in case of Assistant Commissioner (ST) and others vs. M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. and another, 2022 UPTC (110) 269. The said judgment has been relied upon by Division Bench of this Court in case of M/s. Gobind Tobacco Manufacturing Corporation and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2022 UPTC (111) 1080.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Bmr Enterprises vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 14 May, 2024

4. Sri Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a case of sale of goods by the dealer from its unit at Agra to M/s Rawat sales in Mathura. The goods which were in transit were accompanied by necessary documents and the e-way bill. The only mistake on the part of the person in-charge who had downloaded the e-way bill was wrong entry of the Vehicle No. UP 80 CT 7024 in place of UP 83 CT 2724. Except this fact the goods were being transported along with all the necessary documents. According to learned counsel, there was no intention to evade the tax on behalf of dealer and reliance has been placed upon decision of the Apex Court in case of Assistant Commissioner (ST) and others vs. M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. and another, 2022 UPTC (110) 269. The said judgment has been relied upon by Division Bench of this Court in case of M/s. Gobind Tobacco Manufacturing Corporation and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2022 UPTC (111) 1080.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next