Section 75(4) of UPGST Act makes it mandatory to grant opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated.
Order does not assign any reason for cancelling GST registration and is passed only on the ground that reply to show cause notice is not given. Non-submission of reply to SCN cannot be a ground for cancellation of GST registration.
GST registration cannot be cancelled for allegedly being a bogus firm as it is not a ground enumerated under Section 29(2) of GST Act
HC held that as order not assign any reason for cancelling GST registration and is passed only on the ground that reply to show cause notice is not given. Non-submission of reply to SCN cannot be a ground for cancellation of registration.
Deciding appeal on ex parte basis on very first day of hearing is unjustified & such order is vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice
Allahabad High Court held that provisions of section 15 of the GST Act doesnt prescribe valuation of goods on the basis of eye estimation. Accordingly, impugned order based on such valuation is not sustainable.
Allahabad High Court held that when public servant himself makes a demand and demand is accepted by bribe giver and bribe is paid by the bribe giver, it is a case of obtainment under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
S.R. Sales Vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others (Allahabad High Court) HC find that this is a case where the authorities had proceeded merely on presumption that goods which were being transported from Birur (Karnataka) to Kanpur (U.P.) were in fact brought by the petitioner from Nagpur into the State of U.P. using two […]
Munna Singh Ex Sales Tax Officer Vs. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) 1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as Sri Ratnendu Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused record. 2. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused applicant […]
Ayann Traders Vs State of U.P. And 3 Others (Allahabad high court) It is a case where taxing authorities, after intercepting the goods of the petitioner on 18.04.2018, had detained the same and issued notice to both the selling and purchasing dealer. When no reply was filed, a seizure order was passed imposing 100% penalty, […]
