The Allahabad High Court invalidated proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act after finding that only a chassis was being moved for refurbishment and no goods were loaded in the vehicle.
The Allahabad High Court granted bail in a GST fake ITC case after noting that investigation was complete, the complaint had been filed, and trial was unlikely to conclude soon. The Court reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the exception in offences carrying a maximum five-year sentence.
Allahabad High Court held that proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act cannot be initiated without prior determination of tax liability under Sections 73 or 74. The confiscation notice and order were quashed as without jurisdiction.
The Allahabad High Court held that adverse GST orders passed without granting personal hearing are procedurally invalid. The Court ruled that oral hearing under Section 75(4) is an independent statutory requirement.
High Court held that use of the word ‘shall’ in Section 129(3) does not by itself create mandatory consequences. Court emphasized that legislative intent, object, and consequences of non-compliance must be examined.
Allahabad High Court ruled that while authorities could verify documents during transit, absence of an e-Tax Invoice did not confer jurisdiction to impose penalties in a pure transit State. The Court directed release of goods and vehicles.
The Allahabad High Court considered a challenge to amended CGST provisions restricting ITC despite valid invoices and payment of tax. The Court issued notices and sought responses from authorities before considering interim relief.
The Court held that Members of Parliament and other constitutional authorities are entitled to the honorific “Hon’ble” under established protocol. It clarified that personal familiarity or grievances cannot justify omission of the recognized honorific.
The case involved GST proceedings initiated after alleged excess stock was found during a factory survey. The Court held that Section 130 proceedings were wrongly initiated and invalidated the confiscation-related orders passed by the authorities.
The court held that initiating proceedings under the penalty provision for alleged excess stock discovered during a survey was improper. It ruled that such cases must be dealt with under assessment provisions, leading to quashing of the order.
