Court held has held that the principle of vicarious liability can not be extended indefinitely. In the present case also to force the owner of the conveyance to pay the tax, penalty and fine on the goods would mean that the owner of the conveyance is also foisted with the vicarious liability of any mis-declaration/fraud by the owner of the goods despite the proviso engrafted on to Sub Section 2 of Section 130 of the Act.
Chirag Steel Vs the State of Punjab & Others (Punjab and Haryana High Court) Punjab & Haryana HC issues Notice of Motion to consider whether Section 130 can be invoked for confiscation of goods and conveyance in transit after amendment as the said section has been amended vide Finance Act, 2021 effective from 01.01.2022. […]
Aseem Gaind Vs Axis Bank (Punjab & Haryana High Court) Admittedly, even according to the petitioner, his business has been closed since 2015. The reason for closure of the petitioner’s business is only indicated as ‘unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances’, and no particulars are forthcoming. The illness of petitioner’s father is also admittedly during the period […]
Vijay Mamgain Vs State of Haryana & ors. (Punjab & Haryana High Court) No payment of fine in lieu of confiscation of goods required where the owner of the conveyance is seeking only release of vehicle. Brief Facts: In the present case, goods and conveyance were confiscated by the Tax Authorities during transit as the […]
The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020, was passed in November last year. It had come into effect on January 15, 2022.The High Court observed that the core issue for consideration was whether any State can restrict employment even in the private Sector on the basis of Domicile.
Punjab & Haryana HC quashed the detention order and notice issued under Section 130 of the CGST Act, whereby the Petitioner’s goods were seized by the Authorities for the non-payment of tax by the supplier of goods.
HC not deemed it appropriate to non-suit the petitioner on the ground that there is an efficacious remedy of appeal, more so since we are not setting aside the order on merits but are only directing that the Assessing Officer should pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Aarcity Builders Private Limited Vs Union of India (Punjab & Haryana High Court) 1. By this batch of petitions, the petitioners have complained that their applications for revocation of cancellation of registration are not being considered/rejected on the ground that they have not been made within the time prescribed under Section 30 of the Central […]
Petitioner along with co-accused was found to have indulged themselves in evasion of the State Tax to the Govt., by flouting bogus firms and showing fake billings and transactions in order to draw the refund of the GST payment, and thereby had caused a loss to the tune of Rs.8.95 crore to the State Government.
Learned counsel has submitted that as per the prosecution, the total liability of the petitioner turns out to be Rs.2.5 crores and the petitioner has volunteered to deposit half of the amount within ten days subject to final adjustment.
