As the complete details to be filled up in Part-B of the E-way Bill were supplied on 25.05.2018, the goods were not liable for seizure on 26.05.2018.
Pr. CIT Vs. Vijay Infrastructure Ltd. (Allahabad High Court) Since the time limit for filing the revised return had not expired during the relevant year, therefore, claim for deduction under section 80-IA if not made earlier could have been made in the revised return. Once it could have been claimed in the revised return under […]
Against the order dated 30.11.2017 the petitioner has an statutory efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 109 A of the Rules.
Petitioner has equally efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the penalty order under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. It is left open to the petitioner to take recourse to the statutory remedy available to him under the law. We are not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage.
RK Overseas Vs UOI & Ors (Allahabad High Court) On the conjoint reading of sections 107 and 121 of the Act it is thus apparent that though all orders passed under the Act by the adjudicating authority are appealable but not the ones which have been specifically excluded from the purview of appeal under section […]
M/s. Haryana Freight Carrier (P) Ltd. Vs State of UP (High Court Allahabad) The petitioner being transporter has on wrong advice downloaded the transit declaration Form which was prescribed under the VAT Act and has no role so far as the transaction in question is concerned, which is covered by the provisions of the CGST, […]
Surprisingly, neither the mobile squad authority nor the appellate authority appreciated the claim of the petitioner that it is due to mistake or human error the vehicle number (particularly last two digits) are mentioned different which in the instant case are 83 in place of 38. This Court is unhappy with the conduct of the authorities and it is nothing but a clear cut case of harassment of the petitioner/dealer.
Singh Tyres Vs State Of U.P. And Another (Allahabad High Court) From perusal of the record, we find that the goods were transported from one place to another within the State of U.P. and were accompanied by the requisite documents and requisite E-Way Bill has also been produced by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2 […]
Kashi Bartan Bhandar Vs State of UP (Allahabad High Court) The notice under the CGST Act is required to be served in accordance with the provisions of Section 169 of the Act which provides that it can be served by giving or tendering it directly or by messenger to the person concerned or to a […]
Krishna Enterprises Vs State of U.P. & Ors. (Allahabad High Court) Heard Shri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State-respondents. The goods of the petitioner under transportation along with the vehicle have been seized vide order dated 08.05.2018 passed under Section 129(1) of UP GST […]
