Allahabad High Court ruled that while authorities could verify documents during transit, absence of an e-Tax Invoice did not confer jurisdiction to impose penalties in a pure transit State. The Court directed release of goods and vehicles.
The Allahabad High Court considered a challenge to amended CGST provisions restricting ITC despite valid invoices and payment of tax. The Court issued notices and sought responses from authorities before considering interim relief.
The Court held that Members of Parliament and other constitutional authorities are entitled to the honorific “Hon’ble” under established protocol. It clarified that personal familiarity or grievances cannot justify omission of the recognized honorific.
The case involved GST proceedings initiated after alleged excess stock was found during a factory survey. The Court held that Section 130 proceedings were wrongly initiated and invalidated the confiscation-related orders passed by the authorities.
The court held that initiating proceedings under the penalty provision for alleged excess stock discovered during a survey was improper. It ruled that such cases must be dealt with under assessment provisions, leading to quashing of the order.
The Court examined whether Section 130 could be used when discrepancies were found during a GST survey. It held that the correct legal route is Sections 73/74 and reinforced settled precedents.
The Court examined whether confiscation proceedings under Section 130 were valid for alleged excess stock found during a survey. It held that the law mandates action under Sections 73/74, rendering the orders unsustainable.
The Court examined whether Section 130 proceedings were valid when excess stock was found during a survey. It held that such cases must be dealt with under Sections 73/74, rendering the penalty order unsustainable.
The court held that tax determination must follow Sections 73 or 74 and cannot be replaced by Section 130 proceedings. It found the action legally unsustainable. The ruling reinforces procedural compliance under GST law.
The Court set aside the order because the penalty was not disclosed in the statutory Form DRC-01. It held that demands must be clearly specified in the prescribed notice.
