Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that State action for not granting of remission of tax cannot be said to be arbitrary. Accordingly, held that writ petition is devoid of merit.
For invoking Section 67 of the Act existence of reasons to believe to subject the premises to search and seize goods is mandated. Here, the authority is vacillating between Section 67 and 68; whether the goods are in transit or in the godown.
Abinash Kumar Singh Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) Calcutta High Court held that provisions of section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 opens with a non-obstante clause. Accordingly, imposition of penalty u/s 129 justifiable on transporting goods without a valid e-way bill. Facts- The petitioner […]
Sankos Tea Garden Vs The State of West Bengal and Ors (Calcutta High Court) The petitioner is a subsidiary unit of Goodricke Group Limited and engaged in production and manufacture of tea. It is the case of the petitioner that they operate as many as 22 numbers of vehicles of different nature like tractors, leaf […]
Where there is no sold or supply goods, goods can only be transported from one place to another with a delivery challans in lieu of tax invoice.
Pranesh Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & ors. (Calcutta High Court) HC held that impugned notice has been issued in the name of the company which has already been amalgamated in.2020 and that the department has been intimated about this amalgamation which is matters of record and such notice in the name of […]
Calcutta High Court held that penalty under section 129(3) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 imposable on failure to generate a fresh e-way bill when goods are transferred from one vehicle to another during conveyance.
Calcutta High Court held that due to expiry of e-way bill, authorities are empowered to detain the goods and impose tax and penalties thereon as per provisions of section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
GE Power India Limited Vs Union of India & Ors (Calcutta High Court) HC held that impugned orders dated 12th February, 2020 rejecting the petitioner’s applications under the SVLDRS 2019, are arbitrary, invalid, perverse and not tenable in the eye of law for the following reasons: (i) On the date of filing of the applications […]
Hc held that alternative remedy will not operate as an absolute bar for entertaining the writ petition as jurisdictional issue goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, we are of the view that appellant has made out a case for entertaining this appeal” and had also stayed the further re-assessment proceedings.
