Allahabad High Court held that filing of writ petition only with intent to evade pre-deposit of 10% as provided in Goods and Services Tax Act is incorrect. Accordingly, petition is misconceived and is dismissed.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a GST penalty under section 129(3) cannot be imposed for non-filing of Part-B of an e-way bill caused by a technical glitch without intent to evade tax.
The Court found that authorities incorrectly initiated Section 130 action based on survey findings, reaffirming that excess stock cases must follow the mechanism in Sections 73/74.
The Court held that proceedings under Section 130 could not be invoked for excess stock found during survey. Orders were set aside and refund directed.
The Court held that failure to fill Part B of the e-way bill, caused by a technical error, did not indicate tax evasion. The penalty under Section 129(3) was set aside due to lack of findings on evasion intent.
The Court set aside a suspension issued for not acting against a bogus GST firm, noting the officer was on sanctioned leave and later transferred. The ruling permits inquiry proceedings to continue but removes the suspension.
Allahabad HC quashed GST cancellation order and appellate rejection, directing department to issue a fresh show cause notice and grant a personal hearing.
The Court held that deposits taken during investigation were not duty payments, so Section 11BB did not apply. Interest was payable from the date of deposit at 12%, reinforcing that revenue cannot retain money without authority of law.
The High Court ruled that a protest deposit must be considered toward the statutory 10% pre-deposit. The dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance was set aside.
Court held that a statutory appeal cannot be denied merely because GST portal reflects ‘Nil’ disputed tax. It directed GSTN to modify system and allowed taxpayer to file a physical appeal pending correction.
