Explore the legal implications of the non-establishment of GST Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh, leaving dealers remediless. Key questions referred to a Larger Bench.
Nanhey Mal Munna Lal Vs State Of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Prima facie, perusal of Form GST DRC-01A under rule 142(1A) of the Rules indicates that it is a pre-show cause notice (Pre-SCN) intimation with reference to Section 73(1)/(5) or Section 74(1)/(5) to an assessee so that either he may deposit the amount of tax […]
Bharat Mint And Allied Chemicals Vs Commissioner Commercial Tax (Allahabad High Court) The stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act, can also not be accepted inasmuch as it is settled law […]
Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court) Considering the provisions of Section 282 and 282 A of the Act, 1961 and the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, 2000 and meaning of the word “issue” we find that firstly notice shall be signed by the assessing authority and then […]
Gamma Gaana Limited Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court) GST Refund Application cannot be rejected on mere ground of delay in the light of Supreme Court Order – High Court of Allahabad The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has declared in Gamma Gaana Limited Vs. Union of India & 3 others in Writ Tax […]
High Court held that in absence of specific allegations about the applicant he cannot be prosecuted for any offence under section 138 N.I. Act (Cheque Bounce Case).
GST registration once granted could be cancelled only if one of the five statutory conditions was found present. Per se, no GST registration may be cancelled by merely describing the firm that had obtained it, was ‘bogus’.
Allahabad High court held that granting of anticipatory bail does not arise for an offence which is bailable and a direction for the same can be issued only in respect of non-bailable and cognizable offences, the present anticipatory bail application deserves rejection and, accordingly, it is rejected.
Yashpal Vs State of U.P. and Another (Allahabad High Court) clause (e) of sub-Section (1) of Section 72 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910 provides that whenever an offence is punishable under this Act, every animal, cart, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such receptacle or package shall be liable to The power of confiscation […]
Akhilesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Question before the court is whether during confiscation proceedings under section 72 of U.P. Excise Act, the Magistrate is empowered to release the vehicle. In case of (Nand vs. State of U.P.) 1997 (1) AWC 41 and (Rajeev Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and ors) […]
