The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that that due to technical fault of the State Web-site E-way bill-02 could not be generated on 25.3.2018 before the movement of the goods from Varanasi to Fatehpur, however, the same was generated on 26.3.2018 in the morning which was much before the date of seizure order which has been admittedly passed on 27.3.2018 at 6 p.m.
Heard Sri Naveen Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Special Counsel for the State of U.P.
CIT Vs A.R. Trust (Allahabad High Court) Section 12 AA of the Act provides that the Registering Authority after satisfying himself about the objects of the Trust and genuineness of its activities shall pass an order in writing for registration of the Trust or to refuse the registration. Therefore, satisfaction of the Registering Authority is […]
Heard Sri Gaurav Mahajan learned counsel for the department and Sri Arnab Banerji learned counsel for the assessee. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the department against the order dated 6.1.2006 passed by the tribunal in I.T.A. no.614/Del/2002 for the assessment year 1997-98.
It is submitted that vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted at Kanpur on 01.04.2018 at about 9-30 a.m. by respondent no. 2 and interception/detention memo was issued on the ground that since the E-Way Bill No.01 is not available as such the physical verification of the goods loaded is to be made and fixed 02.04.2018 for physical verification and inspection at 11-00 a.m.
Om Disposals Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) We are, faced with two judgments given by the Coordinate Benches of this Court with diametrically opposite conclusions: (a) the earlier judgment in U.P. Kar Adhivakta Sangathan (supra) has affirmed the notification dated 21.07.2017 issued by the State of U.P., (b) the judgment dated 13.04.2018 in Satyendra Goods Transport […]
Merely of none mentioning of the vehicle no. in Part-B of E-Way Bill cannot be a ground for seizure of the goods. We hold that the order of seizure is totally illegal and once the petitioner has placed the material and evidence with regard to its claim, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent no.2 to consider and pass an appropriate reasoned order.
Iqra Roadways (India) Vs. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) In the instant case since the factual disputed issues are involved and further that the penalty proceedings are already initiated, as intimated by the counsel for the State, therefore, it would be proper in the interest of justice that the seized goods be released in favor of the petitioners on the payment of an amount of Rs. 1,11,564/- (as indicated in the show cause notice dated 26.9.2017).
Satyendra Goods Transport Corp. Vs State of U.P. & ors. (Allahabad High Court) It has been held that on the relevant date i.e. 4 Dec. 2017 when the vehicle in question was intercepted, the ‘Government’ referred in Rule 138 of the C.G.S.T. Rules 2017, which was the Central Government, had not developed and approved any […]
Proactive Plast (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Rule 138 of the Rules framed under the Central G.S.T. provides that till such time E-Way bill system is developed and approved by the Council, the Government by notification may specify the documents which are to be carried with the consignment of goods. In […]
