Jay Shree Industries Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court) Whether ‘redemption fine’ falls within the meaning of the word ‘penalty’ used in section 129 of the Scheme, we find neither word has been defined under the Scheme or the Rules framed thereunder or the principal Act, namely the Central Excise Act, 1944. Indisputably, the […]
Prafull Kumar Vs State of U.P (Allahabad High Court) It is common knowledge that there is mounting pendency in the Courts. The Judiciary blames the Bar for their disinclination to wrap up the cases by seeking regular adjournments and filing frivolous applications to stall the process of law. The Judiciary is also concerned with the […]
Ranchi Carrying Corporation Vs Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Allahabad High Court) By the impugned orders the authorities below have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the details mentioned in the invoices at serial nos.1 to 9 are not matching with the verifying sheets available with the mobile squad. This much is also […]
V.S. Enterprises Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Undisputedly, three periods for which the orders had been passed are overlapping. Notice dated 22.12.2020 was issued by respondent no.2 for the period July 2017 to March 2018. It covers the entire period and dispute being sought to be adjudicated in the other two notices as […]
Mohammad Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. & Another (Allahabad high court) Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri A.Z.Khan, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Yatindra Kumar Agnihotri, learned Additional Government Advocate for State. The instant application has been moved by the applicant Mohammad Ahmad Khan with a prayer […]
R M Dairy Products LLP Vs State of U P (Allahabad High Court) provision of Rule 86-A is not a recovery provision but only a provision to secure the interest of revenue and not a recovery provision, to be exercised upon the fulfillment of the conditions, as we have discussed above, we are not inclined […]
Counsel for the petitioner namely Smt Khusboo Devi has tried to address the Court while riding a scooter. The Court therefore declines to hear him. He should be careful in future even if the hearing is to take place through video conferencing.
Daya Nand Pushpa Devi Vs ACIT (Allahabad High Court) Any interpretation or meaning given to the word ‘business’ in the literal parlance cannot be read into the Income Tax Act as the word ‘business’ has been defined in the Act itself. The Court has to read the statute namely the Income Tax Act to find […]
Sh. Suraj Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (Allahabad High Court) Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Sri Nipun Singh and Sri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sanjay Sharma, learned AGA through vedio conferencing. At the very outset, learned Senior […]
Neeta Sales Corp Vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court) 1. The Allahabad High Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before GST Authorities to rectify mistakes in GSTR-1. 2. The division bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Sadhna Rani said that without entering into the merits of the […]
