Skipper Limited Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court) The provision shows that upon seizure of goods and conveyances in transit, the Revenue shall issue a notice specifying the tax and penalty liable to be paid by the assessee and pass an order for payment and tax and penalty in the manner provided under Clause […]
Explore Ankit Bhutani vs. Union of India case. The writ petitioner seeks relief in the tax inquiry against summonses, but the court dismisses the petition due to non-cooperation.
The materials in the records before the authorities below corroborate the fact that the petitioners pitched the product in their sale material and advertisements as a mosquito repellent. Various mosquito repelling qualities are identified as defining characteristics of the subject goods in the market.
It is a case where a vehicle alongwith goods were seized when it was found carrying goods in violation of the Act of 2017. The petitioner alongwith owner of the goods was served with the notice before seizure of the goods.
Sant Prasad Seth Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Withholding of post death dues for years together is not only illegal and arbitrary but a sin if not an offence since no law has declared so. The officials, who are still in service and are instrumental in such delay causing harassment must however feel […]
Jindal Pipes Limited Vs State Of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) It had been admitted that order was served upon the driver and, therefore, the order was neither served on the consignee nor on the consignor. Learned counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2019 (21) GSTN 145 : S/S. Patel Hardware vs. […]
Ajai Kumar Singh Khaldelial Vs PCIT (Allahabad High Court) In the present case, the question which arises for consideration is that in case, cash is deposited directly in the bank account of the beneficiary, can the benefit of Rule 6DD(c)(v) of the Rules, 1962, can be given to the assessee. Such transaction by depositing cash […]
Allahabad High Court held thaty there is no provision which empowers ROC to de-activate DIN, only on the ground that a Director has incurred disqualification under Section 164(2) (a) or his Office has become vacant under Section 167(1) (a). It also quashes List of disqualified directors published by ROC in public gazette.
In the present case a provision has been made in Section 109 for creation of the GST, Appellate Tribunal, but the reasons best known to the respondents only for the State of U.P. said Appellate Tribunal has not been constituted.
AK Overseas Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Allahabad High Court) The Petitioner has filed the writ petition to release the seized goods which are seized under Rule 140 of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017. High Court states that, in case the petitioner fulfills the requirement of Rule 140 together with its explanation, […]
