Om Disposals Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) We are, faced with two judgments given by the Coordinate Benches of this Court with diametrically opposite conclusions: (a) the earlier judgment in U.P. Kar Adhivakta Sangathan (supra) has affirmed the notification dated 21.07.2017 issued by the State of U.P., (b) the judgment dated 13.04.2018 in Satyendra Goods Transport […]
Merely of none mentioning of the vehicle no. in Part-B of E-Way Bill cannot be a ground for seizure of the goods. We hold that the order of seizure is totally illegal and once the petitioner has placed the material and evidence with regard to its claim, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent no.2 to consider and pass an appropriate reasoned order.
Iqra Roadways (India) Vs. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) In the instant case since the factual disputed issues are involved and further that the penalty proceedings are already initiated, as intimated by the counsel for the State, therefore, it would be proper in the interest of justice that the seized goods be released in favor of the petitioners on the payment of an amount of Rs. 1,11,564/- (as indicated in the show cause notice dated 26.9.2017).
Satyendra Goods Transport Corp. Vs State of U.P. & ors. (Allahabad High Court) It has been held that 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 […]
Proactive Plast (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Rule 138 of the Rules framed under the Central G.S.T. provides that till such time E-Way bill system is developed and approved by the Council, the Government by notification may specify the documents which are to be carried with the consignment of goods. In […]
We have perused the relevant documents, namely, Invoice, Goods receipt, E-way Bills etc., which are enclosed as Annexures to the writ petition and found that the E-way bill under the UPGST Act has been downloaded by the petitioner, much before the detention and seizure of the goods and the vehicle, disclosing all the necessary informations.
The other ground of seizure on which penalty has been imposed is that the goods, started their journey one week after the date of the invoice. Prima facie that cannot be the ground to seize the goods or to impose penalty.
The goods of the petitioner have been seized on 16.03.2018 for want of E-Way Bill. On the respective submissions of the parties the issue which crops up in this petition is whether Rule 138 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as it stood originally before the 4th amendment would stand revived with the rescinding of the notifications dated 30/31.01.2018 enforcing the amended Rule 138 of the Rules w.e.f. 01.02.2018 with regard to the E-Way Bill.
Where assessee had failed in establishing the creditworthiness of the donors, occasion for making the gifts and why the donors who were strangers and not men of means gifted such huge amounts to the assessee- HUF out of love and affection, therefore, addition made by AO was justified.
Bhim Rao Ambedkar Educational Society Vs. CIT (Exemption) (Allahabad High Court) A categorical finding has been recorded that Society is not being run according to the objects, i.e., free health education and establishment of dental college without fee. He also pointed out that a Society if charging nominal fee to maintain its expenses etc., it […]
