Under U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 The burden to prove the material which was recovered by the various mobile squads was upon the Department and burden could not have been shifted upon the assessee to prove the same. Further, the assessee has denied the transaction having been made by him.
Admittedly for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner a notice as provided for under Rule 142(1A) of the Rules in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A was not issued, which provided for communication of details of any tax, interest and penalties as ascertained by the officer.
HC set aside order passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal remanding the matter to the Assessing officer. Held that, the Tribunal was incorrect in remanding back the matter, when all the material was before it thus, it should have dealt with each of the material and decided the same.
HC held that mere selling of batteries by piece instead by weight does not make seller liable to be penalised under CGST Act, 2017
Gaurav Trading Company Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) This Court finds that by ex parte order the first appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as he has failed to appear before the authority on 6.4.2021, 24.9.2021 and 2.11.2021. Taking a lenient view, this Court directs the Appellate Authority to reconsider the […]
Court directs that on the deposit of 15% of the total tax liability within a period of 15 days from today, the first appellate authority shall hear and decide the appeal in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both the parties, within a period of next one month.
A person, who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
The provision of Section 142 (b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be considered to be effective with retrospective effect.
Allahabad High Court held that rejection of claim of input tax credit on cryptic findings cannot be sustained. Accordingly, matter remanded to first Appellate Authority to record specific finding.
Considering the provision of Section 68 that the assessee has to prove three conditions i.e. (i) identity of the creditor; (2) capacity of such creditor to advance money; and (iii) genuineness of the transactions. If all the aforesaid three conditions are proved, the burden shifts on the revenue to prove that the amount belong to the assessee. However, the assessee cannot be asked to prove source of source or the origin of origin.
