Stay updated
It is the choice of petitioner to either file appeal u/s 107 or revision u/s 108 against orders passed u/s 73. The words in Section 108(2)(1) cannot be understood as implying that first of all the applicant should file an appeal and only thereafter, a revision will lie against such an order passed in appeal.
The Department can proceed under Section 35(6) or 73 or 74 of the UPGST Act instead of Section 130 of the UPGST Act, for excess stock of material on the basis of eye estimation during inspection.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in the case of Satya Dev Singh held that the co-owner consent is not required when in the primary document of proof of ownership such as electricity bill, owner’s name is mentioned.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Lakhdatar Traders dismissed the writ petition where goods in transit were accompanying with proper tax invoice and e-way bills were detained, imposing penalty on account of suspension of registration of owner would not sustain.
Detention of goods in transit without finding any intention to avoid tax is unjustified: HC
The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case Chandani Tent Traders it was held that passing a order without giving an opportunity of a hearing is a violation of principles of natural justice.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. AV Pharma allowed the writ petition and quashed the order issued by the Department for FY 2017-2018 stating that the orders have been issued beyond the prescribed time limit thereby holding that as the time limit for passing of order under Section 73 of the CGST Act for the Impugned Period i.e. February 05, 2023 has expired prior to the date of notification coming into effect i.e. March 31, 2023, thus, the Notification extending the time limit for passing of Impugned Order under Section 79 would not be applicable.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case Vijay Trading Company set aside order passed under Section 130 under the CGST Act following the determination of excess stock in inspection and directed the determination of tax on Section 73/74 of the CGST Act. As intent to evade tax must be present for the application of Section 130 of CGST Act.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh issued notice to the Revenue Department where the Assessee’s Form GST TRAN-1 claiming transitional credit was rejected on ground that transaction credit of Central Excise Duty was filled in wrong Column and further petitioner could not file appeal on there was no option on GST portal.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Krishna Gupta allowed the writ petition and set aside the penalty order under Section 129 of the CGST Act thereby holding that penalty under Section 129 should not be imposed merely based on technical error in filing of e-way bill i.e. e-way bill not complete when there is no intention to evade payment of tax.