Anandeshwar Traders Vs State of UP

Date: January 18, 2021

Court: High Court
Bench: Allahabad
Type: Writ Petition
Judge(s)/Member(s): Saumitra Dayal Singh
Sign in to download the documents

Subject Matter

Rule 138(9) does not prescribe that the dealer must necessarily cancel the e-way bill if no transportation of the goods is made within 24 hours of its generation

Search, Seizure and DetentionE-Way Bill

Summary

Rule 138(9) does not prescribe that the dealer must necessarily cancel the e-way bill if no transportation of the goods is made within 24 hours of its generation. It certainly does not provide any consequence that may follow if such cancellation does…

1. Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jagdish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel. 2. The present petition is directed against the order dated 3.12.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)-5, Commercial Tax, Kanpur, whereby the demand of tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 29,76,110/- has been confirmed. 3. Undisputedly, the petitioner is a trader in P…

Sign in to read the full case

Create a free account or sign in to access the complete content.