M/s. Modern Traders Vs. State Of U P And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court) The High Court Held that As e-way bill was produced on the same day of the interception of goods along with documents indicating payment of IGST but before seizure order is passed, no justification for passing orders of seizure of goods/vehicle […]
It is not disputed that section 40(a)(ia), Second proviso is for the benefit of the assessee and when a provision has been made in fiscal statute for benefit of assessee, in the absence of any express provision or a provision which by necessary implication gives a different impression, such provision which is beneficial to the assessee must be read and given effect to retroactively.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered company having its registered office at Gurugram, Haryana. The petitioner company is also registered under the GST Act, 2017 and is carrying on business of transportation of goods from one place to another.
S.B.G.C Logistics Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) In view of the decision taken by the Government that if the goods are transported within a distance of 50 km in the case of intra-state transaction, there is no requirement to fill up ‘Part B’. Notification no.12 of 2018 dated 07.03.2018 craves out an exception […]
The order mentioning the State / Central GST instead of IGST provisions could not be held as bad in law as the seizure of goods under section 129 of the SGST Act exists in CGST Act as well.
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.
