AK Overseas Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Allahabad High Court) The Petitioner has filed the writ petition to release the seized goods which are seized under Rule 140 of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017. High Court states that, in case the petitioner fulfills the requirement of Rule 140 together with its explanation, […]
High Court states that if the petitioner fulfills the requirement of Rule 140 together with its explanation, Authorised GST officer will release his vehicle along with the goods within period of one week.
Shaurya Enterprises Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) It has been observed that till March 31, 2018 it was not mandatory to download the e-way bill from the official website and the said requirement was effective from 1st April, 2018. In this case the e-way bill which was downloaded and submitted on 10.12.2017 at […]
Makkhan Singh Vs Shyam Singh And 3 Others (Allahabad High Court) CPC-Constructive notice, held not sufficient-‘Willful disobedience’ to be proved beyond doubt-Court not to proceed on surmises or inferences As regards the contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioners with regard to presumption of service of notice in a case of a notice sent by […]
A conjoint reading of the Rule 117 and 120A of CGST Rules, 2017clearly reveals that every registered person who has submitted a declaration electronically in FORM G.S.T. T.R.A.N-1 within the period specified in Rule 117 or Rule 118 or Rule 119 or Rule 120 is allowed to revise such declaration once and submit the revised declaration in FORM G.S.T. T.R.A.N-1 electronically on the common portal,
S.D. Traders Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court) It has been argued by the counsel for the Revenue that CIT (A) has not travelled beyond the books of accounts and during appeal it was found that only confirmation was available of five parties and the rest of the creditors were untraceable, hence the addition of the […]
The entire consideration for free-hold land was paid by M/s SICCL but in what capacity, was not known and transfer of same land by assessee to SICCPL at a consideration which had a vast difference than that was acquired by assessee after execution of free-hold deed did not conform to even any normal business transaction entered into by a person of ordinary prudence
Mudassirun Nisan Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Allahabad High Court) 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 e-way bill system nor any other arrangement had been made […]
As to the addition made of Rs.37,30,710/-, which is lesser cash in hand as compared with the books of accounts in which the assess has shown more cash in hand, the Tribunal held that it is neither a case under Section 68 of the IT Act nor Section 69-A of the Income Tax Act.
The income tax Appellate Tribunal while hearing an Appeal under Section 254(1) in a matter where registration under Section 12(AA) has been denied by Commissioner income tax can itself pass an order directing commissioner to grant registration in case the income tax Appellate Tribunal disagrees with the satisfaction of the Commissioner on the basis of material already on record before the Commissioner.
