CALCUTTA HIGH COURT [Rahul Bansal Vs The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation & Ors Hon`ble Justice]

1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the orders dated 30th June 2023 and 19th September, 2023 both passed under Sections 107 of the GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”).

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [Prahlad Rai Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others ]

The goods were accompanied by the relevant documents and the explanation of the petitioner with regard to slow movement of the goods clearly indicate that the truck had broken down resulting in delay. This factual aspect should have been considered by the authorities below. The breach committed by the petitioner with respect to not extending time period of the e-way bill is only a technical breach and it cannot be the sole ground for penalty order being passed under Section 129(3) of Act.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [NS Agro and Engineering Products Vs State of U.P. and Another ]

1. Heard Shri Alok Yadav, Advocate holding brief of learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Nimai Dass, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [Enkay Polymers Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others]

Mere non filing of the certified copy of the decision within a period of seven days, when the appeal has been filed electronically within the time frame prescribed, that is, three months, the authority should not dismiss the appeal on the ground that the certified copy of the decision was not filed within time.

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT [ABG Construction Vs Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Bolpur Commissionerate & Ors.]

In the event appellant/assessee deposits 7.5% of the tax assessed in the impugned order within four weeks from date, impugned order shall remain suspended and the matter shall be remanded to the adjudicating authority who shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law in light of the documents submitted before the authority after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant. During the hearing appellant shall also be at liberty to submit reconciliation statements and/or additional documents in support of his plea for exemption under the aforesaid memorandum. Adjudicating authority shall pass a reasoned order within four months from the date of deposit of 7.5% of tax assessed by the appellant, as aforesaid.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [Bhaiyalal Contractors Vs State of UP and 2 Others]

- This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the appellate order dated June 3, 2024 whereby the appeal of the petitioner was rejected by way of Form GST APL - 02 stating the reason "Delay in submission of Appeal". It is clear that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. This Court quashes and sets aside the impugned order dated June 3, 2024 and directs the appellate authority to pass a reasoned order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [Prahlad Rai Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others]

The goods were accompanied by the relevant documents and the explanation of the petitioner with regard to slow movement of the goods clearly indicate that the truck had broken down resulting in delay. This factual aspect should have been considered by the authorities below. The breach committed by the petitioner with respect to not extending time period of the e-way bill is only a technical breach and it cannot be the sole ground for penalty order being passed under Section 129(3) of Act.

DELHI HIGH COURT [ Shree Padma Industries Vs Union of India & Ors. ]

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 12.12.2023 whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2023 proposing a demand of Rs. 9,04,200.00/- against the petitioner had been disposed of and demand including penalty has been raised against the petitioner. The order has been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

DELHI HIGH COURT [S.S. Enterprises Through Its Prop Zahira Begum Vs Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Anr]

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 03.01.2024 whereby the appeal of the Petitioner has been dismissed solely on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. Petitioner also impugns order dated 27.06.2019 whereby the GST registration of the Petitioner was cancelled retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2017 and also impugns Show Cause Notice dated 02.03.2019.

DELHI HIGH COURT [Ethos Limited Vs Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 206 Zone 11 Delhi ]

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 24.04.2024 whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 10.12.2023, proposing a demand of Rs. 2,92,00,063.00 against the petitioner had been disposed of and a demand including penalty has been created against the petitioner. The order has been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [Balaji Coal Traders VS Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Lucknow and Others]

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated April 19, 2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector -7, Agra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent No. 2’), order dated July 12, 2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector – 5, Agra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent No. 3’), and the order dated November 24, 2022 passed by the first appellate authority. Vide order dated November 24, 2022, the appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed as time barred.

DELHI HIGH COURT [Balaji Tilak Metal and Alloys P. Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.]

1. Petitioner seeks quashing of Show Cause Notice dated 27.03.2024, whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been suspended.

Page: