-
Revenue is directed to issue a fresh notice u/s 74(1) and proceed further in the matter in accordance with the law.
Lucky Batteries Works vs State of UP and 2 ors
(2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7597 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
Value of goods in transit is to be determined as per section 15 read with Explanation 2 of Rule 138.
S.K. Trading Co. and Anr. vs. Additional Commissioner
(2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7570 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
The order of the appellate authority is even further bad in law as it discloses no reason, whatsoever for assessing the tax and quantifying the liability.
Diamond Steel vs. State of UP
(2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7550 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Section 74
-
Amount deposited by the assessee shall be refunded subject to the outcome of the demand quantified under Section 74 of the Act in accordance with law.
Maa Mahamaya Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors.
(2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7528 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
An appeal against any decision or order passed under this Act by the adjudicating authority, may be filed before appellate authority within the prescribed period of 3 months from the date on which the said order is communicated to the person concerned.
Ram Ply Product vs Additional Commissioner
(2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7482 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
GST Authorities are directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the assessee and take into account the ITR returns filed by them.
Viraj Polymers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors.
(2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7419 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
Security amount deposited under the interim order is released in favour of the petitioner.
Vriddhi Infratech India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow
(2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7337 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
The Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in trading business and supply of construction material, SCN was issued for cancellation of registration directing it to furnish a reply to the notice within 7 working days, Assessee couldn’t respond within stipulated time hence, the order.
Pragati Enterprises vs. The Commissioner
(2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7320 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
The errors in the judgment are apparent and contained reproduction of the section which has undergone amendment.
Bharti Airtel Ltd vs. State of UP
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6972 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
Where SCN proposing suspension of GST registration has been issued due to the proceedings initiated against the assessee for violation of the provisions in issuing invoice or bill without supply of goods & wrongful availment of the benefits, assessee cannot seek the interference of writ court without furnishing any reply to the show cause notice.
DM Traders vs UOI vs anr
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6865 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
Revenue’s argument that it had received intelligence that the goods are being transported twice over on the same set of invoices is not worthy of acceptance, inasmuch as, the goods to be transported have to be accompanied by E-way bills as provided under Section 138.
State Of U.P vs Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt Ltd
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6841 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Section 129(3)
-
There is no provision under section 129 for determination of tax due, which can be done only by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 73 or 74.
Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs State of U.P.
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6838 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Section 129
-
Allegations as levelled in the show cause notice should be clear and specific and the findings cannot go beyond the allegations as levelled in the show cause notice.
Principal Commissioner CGST vs. Bushrah Export House Two Star Lucknow and Anr.
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6719 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
The only allegation levelled against the Assessee was that Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled up and there is no allegation that the goods being transported were being transported without payment of tax.
Citykart Retail Pvt Ltd vs. The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6717 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
Revenue Authorities closed their eyes to the power and jurisdiction that never existed as they chose to exercise the vested powers of search and seizure against a godown premises, an immovable property.
Mahavir Polyplast Pvt Ltd vs. State of U.P.
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6646 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
Once the valid document i.e. e-way bill and tax invoice, builty is accompanying the goods, the authorities ought not to have drag the petitioner in an unnecessary litigation.
Sleevco Traders vs. Additional Commissioner
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6608 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
It is a fit case where discretion could be exercised in favour of the applicants and moreover, seriousness of the offences alone is not conclusive of the applicant's entitlement to bail.
Subodh Kumar Garg vs. Union of India
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6591 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
The order of cancellation of the registration on the ground that no reply was given is equally lacking in terms of a quasi-judicial fervor as the same does not contain any reasoning whatsoever.
DRS Wood Products vs. State of U.P.
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6585 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
Tax invoice based on which goods were dispatched from Telangana to Rail Coach Factory, Raebareli, UP was dated February 26, 2018 and was issued in compliance with Rule 46.
HBL Power Systems Ltd. vs State Of U.P
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6552 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
Where the trial will take its own time to conclude, the Commissioner is empowered to recover the due amount and propose for abating the proceedings.
Paras Jain vs UOI
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6551 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.