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 […]
M/s LG Electronics (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) The Sale Tax regime came to an end on 13th May, 1994. Thereafter, Trade Tax regime came into force by U.P. Act No. 31 of 1995 with effect from 14.5.1994 but, the scheme of the erstwhile that continued without any change in […]
As per Rule 140, in case the owner of the goods furnishes the security in the form of bank guarantee equivalent to amount of applicable tax, interest and penalty payable, the authorities can consider the release of goods and vehicle.
Points that emerge for adjudication are whether the search and seizure under GST was carried out by observing the ‘substantive due process’ as well as the ‘procedural due process.’
CIT Vs Ms. Mustang Leather Pvt. Ltd. (Allahabad High Court) A deemed dividend could only have been assessed in the hands of a person who is shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of the borrowing concern in which such shareholder is a member or partner having substantial interest. Admittedly, in the […]
