Govind Enterprises Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Thrust of the allegations made in the impugned FIR is that the dealer fraudulently, with a dishonest intention, by submitting false documents, with an intention to evade taxes, obtained registration, thereafter, took inward supply and passed on the goods to end users, without generating outward supply […]
In the present case, the petitioner has made a categorical averment in the petition that the amount of tax and penalty has been paid. Under the circumstances, there is no reason for the respondents to withhold the release of the truck in question together with the goods. Under the circumstances, the respondents are directed to forthwith release Truck No.GJ-01-DT-5949 along with the goods contained therein.In the present case, the petitioner has made a categorical averment in the petition that the amount of tax and penalty has been paid. Under the circumstances, there is no reason for the respondents to withhold the release of the truck in question together with the goods. Under the circumstances, the respondents are directed to forthwith release Truck No.GJ-01-DT-5949 along with the goods contained therein.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide Judgment dated 6th June, 2019 passed in Crl. A. No.660/2017 titled Sikodh Mahto vs. State and in Crl No.698/2017 titled Prabhu Mahto vs. State while quashing the order passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted the appellants in case involving alleged seizure of contraband (Charas weighing 2 Kg. each from said appellants).
Penalty under section 271AAA could not be imposed on assessee on the ground that assessee failed to substantiate the manner in which undisclosed income was derived in case assessee had included the same in his return of income and accepted by AO without making any addition to the returned income.
Demand of tax on advertisement from the petitioners after 1.7.2017 is held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. Notices of demand impugned in the petition are quashed and the amount, if any, of the advertisement tax deposited by the petitioners for the period 1.7.2017 onwards is directed to be refunded to the petitioners.
Mr Satyakam informs the Court that Mr Rajesh Prasad has undertaken a complete review of the procedure and in view of what has transpired in the Court, he undertakes to disband the RAC. He proposes to issue appropriate notification to authorize a proper officer in respect of the refunds above the certain value strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi GST Act. He undertakes to place before the Court on the next date, by way of an affidavit, the steps taken by him in this regard.
Deputy Commissioner for Stamps (DC) erroneously directed assessee to pay stamp duty under Article 28(a) of the Stamp Act without properly examining the recitals of the document where the relationship of the donor and the donee was clearly mentioned and without looking into the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of the Stamp Act, therefore, the order could not be sustained.
Oudh Bar Asso. Vs U.O.I. (Allahabad High Court) In the present case, the legislation, namely, GST Act, 2017 has been enacted and has come into force with effect from 01.07.2017. Under the said enactment, various authorities have to be set up, namely, GST Council, and the GST Council was authorised to make recommendations to the […]
Input Tax credit (GST) Can not be denied to recipient for default on part of the supplier- Delhi High Court issued notice to UNION OF INDIA. Delhi HC issues notice in writ petition challenging Section 16(2)(c), second proviso to Section 16(2)(d) and proviso to Section 16(4) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act);
Whenever any compensation is awarded for the acquisition of a land under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, except those covered by section 46 of the 2013 Act, same was exempt under section 96 of the RFCTLAAR Act, 2013.
