It is also directed that if the petitioner complies with Rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the goods detained shall be released to him forthwith.
CIT (TDS) Vs M/s Mumbai Metropolitan Regional (Bombay High Court) Section 194LA of the I.T.Act, 1961 inter alia deals with payment of compensation on acquisition of certain immovable property. Section 194LA of the I.T.Act, 1961 was brought into force with effect from 1st October, 2004. Section 194L of the I.T.Act, 1961 deals with payment of […]
Against the order dated 30.11.2017 the petitioner has an statutory efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 109 A of the Rules.
Petitioner has equally efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the penalty order under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. It is left open to the petitioner to take recourse to the statutory remedy available to him under the law. We are not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage.
RK Overseas Vs UOI & Ors (Allahabad High Court) On the conjoint reading of sections 107 and 121 of the Act it is thus apparent that though all orders passed under the Act by the adjudicating authority are appealable but not the ones which have been specifically excluded from the purview of appeal under section […]
M/s. Haryana Freight Carrier (P) Ltd. Vs State of UP (High Court Allahabad) The petitioner being transporter has on wrong advice downloaded the transit declaration Form which was prescribed under the VAT Act and has no role so far as the transaction in question is concerned, which is covered by the provisions of the CGST, […]
Sri Mangal Murty Marketing Vs State of Maharastra (High Court Bombay) As a result, perusal of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act 1988 only regulates the lotteries and the Regulation is in form of the stipulation of terms and conditions when the Government organizes, conduct or promotes a lottery. The intention of the Parliament in introducing Section […]
Sabitha Riyaz Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court) The petitioner, a trader, transported natural rubber. After generating e-way bill, she sent a consignment to Uttarakhand, with all the relevant records. But it was seized by the State Tax Officer, Uttarakhand, the additional 11th respondent. The ground for detention is that in the e-way bill the […]
Surprisingly, neither the mobile squad authority nor the appellate authority appreciated the claim of the petitioner that it is due to mistake or human error the vehicle number (particularly last two digits) are mentioned different which in the instant case are 83 in place of 38. This Court is unhappy with the conduct of the authorities and it is nothing but a clear cut case of harassment of the petitioner/dealer.
Singh Tyres Vs State Of U.P. And Another (Allahabad High Court) From perusal of the record, we find that the goods were transported from one place to another within the State of U.P. and were accompanied by the requisite documents and requisite E-Way Bill has also been produced by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2 […]
