Uttarakhand High Court directed petitioner to file an application for revocation under Section 30 of the GST Act in terms of Rule 23 of the GST Rules despite being time-barred post payment of all the pending dues.
Devendra Prasad Vs Assistant Commissioner (Uttarakhand High Court) Since, the petitioner failed to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months and show cause notice has been sent to him, it is directed that the petitioner shall file an application for revocation under Section 30 of the CGST Act in terms of Rule 23 […]
Akums Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Uttarakhand High Court) Whether the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand in holding that the revisionist is not entitled to reduce the levy of Central Sales Tax @ 1% for the financial year 2010-11 onwards) after the Capital Investment of Plant and Machinery, having […]
Amount deposited has no specific colour since the amount was deposited under protest and even before the crystallisation of the liability of the respondent-assessee as Central Excise Duty or as interest
Sonal Automation Industries Vs State of Uttarakhand (Uttarakhand High Court) The penalty order was passed due to inadvertent mistake i.e. invoice number stated as 235 in place of SAI/V/235. The writ petition was allowed and penalty order was quashed. The imposition of the penal consequences due to an exception, which has been caused on account […]
Rajesh Kumar Dudani Vs State of Uttarakhand (Uttarakhand High Court) It is the case of generating fake and forged invoices so as to claim ITC. In their objections, the respondent no.2 has given categorical details of such dubious transactions and has also submitted as to how in one day, the money has routed in different […]
Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax & Anr. (Uttarakhand High Court) The short question that arises for determination in this writ petition is ‘whether the amount paid by the petitioner, under protest, towards interest , prior to issuance of show cause shall be considered as pre-deposit while disposing his application […]
Yukti Construction Pvt. Ltd Vs Asha Sharma (Uttarakhand High Court) An arbitration agreement does not require registration under the Registration Act. Even if it is found as one of the clauses in a contract or instrument, it is an independent agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration, which is independent of the main contract or […]
Vinod Kumar Vs Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST (Uttarakhand High Court) It is apparent from the record that a notice was given on the GSTN website, which in our considered opinion, is not sufficient, and a personal notice has to be given before cancellation of the GST registration. Therefore, the Court can invoke its jurisdiction under […]
A notice was given on the website, which is not sufficient, and a personal notice has to be given before cancellation of the GST registration. Therefore, the Court can invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
