Shri Ram Ply Product Vs Addl. Commissioner (Allahabad High Court) Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides that an appeal, against any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act by the adjudicating authority, may be filed before appellate authority within the […]
Allahabad High Court noted that against the order dated 21.05.2022 passed u/s 74 of GST Act, 2017, the appeal could have been filed within a period of 30 days, which was extendable for one month and no more.
Vivek Saxena Vs Ashish Verma, Chief Income Tax (Allahabad High court) The present contempt application has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for punishing the Opposite Party for willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 01.12.2022 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 16848 of 2022. It is […]
Order falls short of principle of natural of justice as admittedly SIB report, which is foundation was never supplied to petitioner, no hearing was granted to petitioner under section 75(4) of Act
Issue involved Whether department is enjoined to issue a notice under subsection 3 of Section 61 of CGST Act, 2017 once returns have been submitted by assessee before initiating action under Section 74 or not?
GST: Petitioner urged that had goods been perishable it ought to have sold in terms of rules 141(2) within 15 days of seizure and as it has not been sold, goods ought to be treated as non-perishable.
HC held that penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the UPGST Act was unjustified and untenable since the owner has come forward for payment of penalty.
Once the documents clearly establish the name of the consignor, who is a registered dealer in the State, the proceedings should have been initiated against the owner of the firm instead of the driver, so as to enable him to respond to the notice.
No reason ascribed for cancellation of GST registration. Such order without any application of mind and is set aside.
If petitioner is either a consignor or a consignee, he has to be treated as a owner of goods & provisions of Section 129(1)(b) not invokable
