The case involved detention of two-wheeler vehicles for e-way bill expiry. The High Court quashed the seizure, noting that proper invoices, registration, and GPS tracking showed no intent to evade tax.
The Court held that uploading a show cause notice on the GST portal after cancellation of registration violates natural justice, leading to quashing of Section 73 orders.
Allahabad HC quashed penalties under Section 129(3) of GST Act where Part B of the e-way bill was not filled due to a technical error and no intent to evade tax was found.
The Court held that documents seized during a survey justified rejection of accounts and best judgment assessment. Partial relief granted by the Tribunal was found adequate, warranting no further interference.
The Court quashed an ex-parte GST order where the initial notice did not comply with procedural requirements, emphasizing proper reissuance of notice and lawful proceedings.
The Court held that the show-cause notice under Section 73 CGST did not lack jurisdiction. It directed the petitioner to file a reply and allowed the Adjudicating Authority to examine all objections independently.
The Allahabad High Court quashed a GST registration cancellation order, ruling that the impugned order lacked reasons and was passed without proper hearing, violating procedural fairness.
The Court ruled that ITC reversal is unsustainable when the supplier was registered and tax was duly paid. The petitioner’s ITC claim was upheld as legitimate.
The court ruled that a minor error in the PIN code of a consignee does not justify seizure under Section 129 of the CGST Act. The High Court emphasized that CBIC circulars are binding and no tax evasion can be presumed from such technical mistakes.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that parts replaced during warranty and AMC periods are taxable, applying the Supreme Court’s Tata Motors judgment. Tax liability arises even if no direct payment is charged to customers.
