As per Rule 120A of the CGST Rules, 2017 application for extending the time period for submitting the revised FORM GST TRAN-1 electronically has to be extended by the Commissioner and not by any other subordinate authority.
Avtar Trading Co. Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the opposite parties in most arbitrary and illegal manner have detained the vehicle as well as the goods. There is no contravention of the provisions and there is no evasion of tax. The driver of the vehicle was […]
Respondents are directed to open the portal before 31st of March 2019. In the event they do not do so, they will entertain the GST TRAN-1 of the petitioner manually and pass orders on it after due verification of the credits as claimed by the petitioner. They will also ensure that the petitioner is allowed to pay its taxes on the regular electronic system also which is being maintained for use of the credit likely to be considered for the petitioner.
Rimjhim Ispat Limited Vs State Of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Coming to the question of the validity of the confiscation order passed under Section 130 of the UPGST Act and challenged by the petitioner by means of an amendment application filed. The perusal of the said confiscation order (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) reveals that […]
Without going into the issue as to whether the time for the purpose can be extended, as the petitioner has moved the aforesaid application, the Assistant Commissioner/Commissioner GST may consider the above application and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Mkc Traders and Another Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) A perusal of the seizure order and the order passed under Section 129(3) of the Act for the release of the goods reveal that the transporter has not been assigned any role in the entire transaction which had led to the seizure of the […]
The goods of the petitioner were being carried from Delhi to Ghaziabad and have been seized on the basis of certain alleged irregularities found in the documents accompanying the goods.
The goods and the vehicle of the petitioner have been seized as the date of the tax invoice mentioned in the E-WAY bill was different from the date mentioned on the tax invoice.
Ashok Kumar Bhatia Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Section 129 relates to ‘any person’ who transports any goods or stores any goods while they are “in transit” in contravention of the provisions of this Act or Rules made thereunder, all such goods and conveyance used as a means of transport for carrying the […]
Shivagopal Vs State of U.P (Allahabad High Court) (i) A government employee is not entitled to death cum retiral gratuity unless the conclusion of the departmental proceedings or the enquiry by the Administrative Tribunal or judicial proceedings which includes both civil and criminal. (ii) The law as laid down in Jai Prakash (Supra) is the […]
