Bengali Lal & Sons Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri R.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents no. 5 and 6 as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents no. 1 to 4. The petitioner is a partnership firm and had applied for registration under […]
Suresh Kumar Sheetlani Vs ITO (Allahabad High Court) The address was collected by the department from the bank, whereas known address was available with the department on Saral Form-5 of the petitioner. The assessee took the specific plea that he had filed his return of income for the year under consideration i. e. 1999-2000 on […]
M/S Akash Traders Vs State Of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Heard Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.B. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the seizure order dated 30.12.2017 passed under Section 129(1) of U.P. GST Act (hereinafter referred […]
The adjudication proceedings on the goods detained / seized should be completed expeditiously as the law itself provides for release of goods on fulfilment of prescribed condition.
The petitioner has ought to quash the seizure order dated 05.01.2018 which has been passed against the petitioner on the allegation that there was some wrong declaration on the date in the E-way Bill. The petitioner states that it had been written down inadvertently. Other than that no other allegation has been made against the petitioner.
E-Way Bill has been made applicable under the Central GST with effect from 1st February, 2018 and was not in place on the date of seizure though the State of U.P. alone has made a provision for the E-Way Bill earlier but that was not applicable to the State of Jharkhand from where the said loader/tipper had started journey.
Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal assisted by Sri Varad Nath and Miss. Archi Agarwal learned counsels for the petitioner. Sri V.K.S. Raghuvanshi, appeared for the respondent no.4, Sri C.B. Tripathi for the respondent nos.1 and 5 and Sri Arvind Kumar Kushwaha holding the brief of Sri Prem Shankar Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 6.
M/s M.K. Enterprises v. State of U.P. & 3 Others (Allahabad High Court) Assessee was not given any opportunity to show cause or give reply to the allegation on which goods had been seized on account of absence of Transit Declaration Form (TDF), it was held that as the petitioner had no notice or opportunity […]
Manu International Vs. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Penalty should not be imposed where the assessee is unable to file the GST returns and pay the taxes for technical issues relating to migration. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm under the U.P. VAT Act, 2008. On the enforcement of the GST, it applied […]
The petitioner has alleged in the petition that despite making several efforts on the last date for filing of the application, the electronic system of the respondent no.2 did not respond, as a result of which the petitioner is likely to suffer loss of the credit that it is entitled to by passage of time.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
