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/s. Modern Traders Vs. State Of U P And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court) The High Court Held that As e-way bill was produced on the same day of the interception of goods along with documents indicating payment of IGST but before seizure order is passed, no justification for passing orders of seizure of goods/vehicle […]
It is not disputed that section 40(a)(ia), Second proviso is for the benefit of the assessee and when a provision has been made in fiscal statute for benefit of assessee, in the absence of any express provision or a provision which by necessary implication gives a different impression, such provision which is beneficial to the assessee must be read and given effect to retroactively.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered company having its registered office at Gurugram, Haryana. The petitioner company is also registered under the GST Act, 2017 and is carrying on business of transportation of goods from one place to another.
S.B.G.C Logistics Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) In view of the decision taken by the Government that if the goods are transported within a distance of 50 km in the case of intra-state transaction, there is no requirement to fill up ‘Part B’. Notification no.12 of 2018 dated 07.03.2018 craves out an exception […]
The order mentioning the State / Central GST instead of IGST provisions could not be held as bad in law as the seizure of goods under section 129 of the SGST Act exists in CGST Act as well.
