The respondents have submitted a reply wherein, the averments made by the petitioner are controverted on the ground that the application for cancellation of registration was made in FORM GST REG-29 and not in FORM GST REG-16 and thus, the system did not link the GSTIN of Shri Abdul Hameed Bhati (the deceased proprietor of the firm) to the GSTIN of the petitioner herein.
J&K HC while dismissing the writ petition observed that there was an alternative remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and the issue raised by the petitioner is a disputed question of fact that cannot adjudicated upon in the writ petition.
Delhi HC granted permanent injunction to INTEL on the ground that the lis no longer exists between the parties and the Defendants were willing to suffer permanent injunction in terms of the prayer clause 37(i) & (ii) of the plaint, which was pertaining to prevent defendants to use the word INTEL as their trademark and trade name.
Sonal Automation Industries Vs State of Uttarakhand (Uttarakhand High Court) The penalty order was passed due to inadvertent mistake i.e. invoice number stated as 235 in place of SAI/V/235. The writ petition was allowed and penalty order was quashed. The imposition of the penal consequences due to an exception, which has been caused on account […]
Satguru Impex Vs State of Tripura (Tripura High Court) The petitioner made mistakes in the e-way bill in the names of buyers and sellers. In place of buyer’s name, seller name was filled and in place of seller’s name, buyer name was filled. The mistake was rectified by generating fresh e-way bill. The GST departments […]
Progressive Enterprise Vs State of Tripura (Tripura High Court) The goods were sent form Guwahati to Tripura. Due to some reasons goods were not unloaded and the petitioner sought to take back the goods to Guwahati. The Driver stated to the concern inspector that he is waiting for the fresh tax invoices and e-way bills […]
Tarmal Industrial Supply Company Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court) Non-speaking order – the show cause notice issued prior to passing of the impugned order does not stipulate even basic details such as the date and time of hearing – the requirement of passing a speaking order has been entirely frustrated in so far […]
Messrs Tanay Creation Through Prop. Tanay Mahavir Shah Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The petitioner put the case before the Hon’ble Court that no opportunity was given before passing the order under section 129 and 130. The notices were served upon the truck driver instead of owner of the goods or owner of […]
Rimi Sales Agency Vs Union of India (Tripura High Court) Show-cause notice was issued on 06.11.2018 which required the petitioner to appear before the said authority on 23.11.2018. Without permitting the petitioner to appear and file reply and oppose the demands the Inspector confirmed the demand by passing separate orders on 06.11.2018. This was wholly […]
Tirthamoyee Aluminium Products Vs State of Tripura (Tripura High Court) Due to a clerical error in the e-way Bill the distance from the place of origin to the destination was shown as 470 Kms. instead of actual distance of 1470 Kms. There is no dispute that the goods were sold by way of inter-state sale […]
