<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (1) TMI 25 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390412</link>
    <description>The writ petitioner was permitted to amend the petition to add a challenge to the vires of section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in addition to the existing challenge to section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Notice was directed to be served on the Attorney General for India and the Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh, reflecting that the constitutional validity challenge was allowed to proceed against both enactments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2025 13:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=599046" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 25 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390412</link>
      <description>The writ petitioner was permitted to amend the petition to add a challenge to the vires of section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in addition to the existing challenge to section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Notice was directed to be served on the Attorney General for India and the Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh, reflecting that the constitutional validity challenge was allowed to proceed against both enactments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390412</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>