Sri Mathur has placed before us an order under Section 119 whereby the due date has already been extended by this order till 15th October, 2018. In view of the above, it appears that the matter has become infructuous as it has lost its efficacy.
Swapnil Kumar Vs C.S.C. (Allahabad High Court) It is important to mention here that CIT(A), after considering the report submitted by the A.O. in response to the directions under Section 250(4) of the Act, had held that the assessee was not residing at 109, North Idgah Colony, Agra and he had left the address two […]
Union Of India Vs The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow (Allahabad High Court) In the present case it is an admitted fact that the revisionist disputed the liability of payment of tax and that the revisionist never admitted liability to pay any tax on the transaction in question and this fact that the revisionist is […]
The submission of Sri Vishwjit, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the seizure is on account of non filing Part-B of E-way Bill. Part-B of E-Way Bill requires the details of the vehicle carrying the goods and the destination.
Bengali Lal & Sons Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri R.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents no. 5 and 6 as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents no. 1 to 4. The petitioner is a partnership firm and had applied for registration under […]
Suresh Kumar Sheetlani Vs ITO (Allahabad High Court) The address was collected by the department from the bank, whereas known address was available with the department on Saral Form-5 of the petitioner. The assessee took the specific plea that he had filed his return of income for the year under consideration i. e. 1999-2000 on […]
M/S Akash Traders Vs State Of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Heard Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.B. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the seizure order dated 30.12.2017 passed under Section 129(1) of U.P. GST Act (hereinafter referred […]
The adjudication proceedings on the goods detained / seized should be completed expeditiously as the law itself provides for release of goods on fulfilment of prescribed condition.
The petitioner has ought to quash the seizure order dated 05.01.2018 which has been passed against the petitioner on the allegation that there was some wrong declaration on the date in the E-way Bill. The petitioner states that it had been written down inadvertently. Other than that no other allegation has been made against the petitioner.
E-Way Bill has been made applicable under the Central GST with effect from 1st February, 2018 and was not in place on the date of seizure though the State of U.P. alone has made a provision for the E-Way Bill earlier but that was not applicable to the State of Jharkhand from where the said loader/tipper had started journey.
