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.
The Court held that ITC refund on capital goods cannot be granted when the dealer failed to file TRAN-1 under GST transition rules. The ruling confirms that the VAT Act provides no mechanism for such refunds.
The High Court held that a works contract for supply, installation, and commissioning of machinery was indivisible. The Court allowed tax benefits under Section 3(F)(2)(b) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
The Court held that brief delays in producing documents during transit do not constitute grounds for a Section 48(5) VAT penalty, setting aside the penalty imposed on the assessee.
The Allahabad HC held that the show cause notice under Section 74 was invalid as it did not specify fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts, quashing the notice.
Court ruled that protections under the RBI Circular apply only to third-party breaches and cannot be invoked to recast personal transactions as fraud. Since bank records showed the petitioners’ own involvement, the writ was dismissed.
Allahabad High Court held that proceedings under GST Section 130 are not permissible against a registered dealer; actions should have been initiated under Sections 73/74.
