Section 67(2) of the Act empowers the authorised officer to search and seize the goods, documents or books or things – however, s.67(2) does not empower the officer concerned to record statements of family members through force or coercion or to record their conversations in their mobile phones.
Limitation period for issuance of scrutiny notice under section 143(2) on filing of defective returns was to be considered from the date of filing of the original return as upon removing of defects, the return would relate back to the date of filing of the original return thus, the notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the period of limitation and could not be sustained.
Insha Trading Company Vs. State Of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The reasons for issuance of the notice for confiscation under section 130 of the CGST Act in Form GST MOV-10 are that upon preliminary verification of the dealer online, 42 e-way bills have been generated in December 2018, wherein, IGST has been shown to Rs. […]
The Hon’ble HC, Gujarat in the matter of M/s Choksi Texlen Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [Special Civil Application No. 8096 of 2019 dated October 18, 2019] instructs Revenue authorities to withdraw the charge and attachment made on the Petitioner’s property to recover alleged dues of the erstwhile owner of the property under the […]
When the conveyance in question was carrying the goods which were duly accompanied by documents and no discrepancy was found in connection therewith, there was no reason for the third respondent to confiscate the same. The impugned order of confiscation passed by the third respondent under section 130 of the CGST Act, therefore, cannot be sustained.
Prakashsinh Hathisinh Udavat Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid seizure of his car and mobile phones was made without following the provisions of section 67 of the GGST Act and rule 139 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to […]
In this case despite the fact that the petitioner had complied with the procedure for movement of goods as stipulated under the GST Acts, by the impugned order, the truck with the goods came to be detained/seized under section 129 of the GST Acts on the ground that the transport receipt was a photocopy and the details filled in the transport receipt were handwritten.
Sitaram Roadways Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Observing that principles of natural justice were violated by the adjudicating authority, the Gujarat High Court has set aside the order of confiscation of conveyance and goods, earlier found to be not in possession of mandatory documents. The Court noted that petitioner was not afforded opportunity […]
Siddhabali Stone Gallery Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Considering the documents placed on record which reveal that the petitioner had paid the integrated goods and services tax on the goods in question at the time of import thereof as well as the fact that after the conveyance came to be intercepted, the petitioner […]
Manglesh Champaklal Gandhi Vs Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. (Gujarat High Court) It is clear that on reading the provisions of Section 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 with Rule 8 of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the Court held that once possession notice is given under […]
