NOMINAL INDEX M/S Mgs Palace v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 4 M/S. Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 9 M/S Eastern Machine Bricks And Tiles Industries vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 14 Akbar Ali Transport Services vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 25 M/S Roli Enterprises vs. State Of...
NOMINAL INDEX
M/S Mgs Palace v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 4
M/S. Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 9
M/S Eastern Machine Bricks And Tiles Industries vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 14
Akbar Ali Transport Services vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 25
M/S Roli Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 31
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax vS. M/S Peethambra Granites Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 32
M/S Garg Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 47
M/S Primeone Work Force Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Auth. Signatory Alok Kumar v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance (Deptt. Of Revenue) New Delhi And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 49
M/S Ashoka P.U. Foam (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 50
M/S Royal Sanitations vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 51
Murli Packers Through Its Proprietor Rakesh Kumar Jain vs. State Of U P Through Secretary, Institutional Finance And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 52
M/S Veira Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 54
M/S Associated Switch Gears and Projects Ltd. Through Its Director Jawahar Lal Jain vs. State of U.P., Through Secretary Institutional Finance U.P. Govt. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 57
M/S Falguni Steels vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 59
M/s K.J. Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 73
M/s Globe Panel Industries India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 74
Shri Durga Trading Co vs. Income Tax Officer And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 75
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Cribhko Shyam Fertilizer Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 77
M/S Kronos Solutions India Private Limited v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 78
M/S John Oakey And Mohan Limited vs. The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 91
The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow vs. S/S. D.I.C. India Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 94
M/S Yadav Steels Having Office vs. Additional Commissioner And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 109
M/S Indeutsch Industries Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 113
M/S Akhilesh Traders v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 114
M/S Rajansh Marble House Gomti Nagar Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 115
M/S Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of U P And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 116
M/S Mansoori Enterprises Versus U.O.I. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 119
M/S Gopi Chand Batra Traders v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 126
Gurdeep Singh vs. Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam Moti Jheel And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 131
Qamar Ahmed Kazmi vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 133
M/S Sanyo Koreatex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner Trade Tax And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 134
M/S Riadi Steels Llp vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 135
M/S Jhansi Enterprises Nandanpura Jhansi vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 136
M/S Genius Ortho Industries vs. Union Of India And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 137
M/S Abhishek Sales vs. Sate Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 155
M/S Maa Kamakhya Trader v. Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 162
M/S Samsung India Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170
M/S Shree Sai Palace vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 171
Grs Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Thru. Director Shri Ganga Charan Rajput vs. Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. (Revenue) Ministry Of Finance Govt. Of India , New Delhi And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 188
M/S United Spirits Limited v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 222
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. v. M/S Godfrey Philips India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 223
M/S Eco Plus Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 224
Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. S/S Soma Enterprises Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 225
Durga Steel Rolling Mills Thru. Partner Amit Arora v. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes UP Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 228
Dipak Kumar Agarwal v. Assessing Officer And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 248
M/S Arvind Kumar Shivhare v. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 249
Hotel President Through Its Partner / Proprietor And Another v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 251
Mukesh Kumar Jha vs. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 261
Ram Kishan Bairwa v. Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 262
Meera Pandey Thru. Her Attorney v. Union Of India, Ministry Of Finance Deptt. Of Revenue (Cbdt) , New Delhi And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 271
Sandeep Singh v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 278
Mr. Pranay Dhabhai v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 299
Mentha And Allied Products Ltd vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 300
Satish Kumar Bansal Huf v. National Faceless Assessment Centre Nafac And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 301
M/S K Y Tobacco Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 319
M/S Rajshi Processors Raebareli Thru. Its Partner Ashok Kumar Lakhotia v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax,Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 320
The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawan And Another vs. The Mahabir Jute Mills Lts. Sahjanwah Gorakhpur 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 327
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. v. M/S R.P. Milk Made Products (P) Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 328
M/S S Kumar Construction v. Commissioner Of Central Excise (Appeals), Central Goods And Services Tax (Appeals) And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 344
M/S.Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Versus Cce Meerut 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 354
Commissioner Commercial Tax, U.P. At Lucknow V. M/S Pan Parag India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 356
M/S Tata Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 357
Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 358
M/S Ace Manufacturing Systems Limited v. State Of U P And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 360
M/s Avshesh Kumar v. Union of India and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 380
M/S Abdul Rahman & Sons Versus Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 419
M/S Kashi Ram Ved Prakash vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 428
M/S Rajdhani Arms Corporation, Lucknow Thru. Propreitor, Seema Sarna v. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P., Commercial Tax Bhawan,Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 452
Pramit vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 466
Gyan Prakash Rastogi vs. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 479
M/S Bgr Energy Systems Ltd v. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 487
Prashant Chandra v. Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 507
M/S Bans Steel Through Its Proprietor Alpana Jain v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 508
Banaras Industries vs. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 519
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax V. M/S Emami Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 523
M/S Anil Rice Mill vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 533
M/S Sarswat Peroxides Private Ltd. Throu Its Director v. The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P.Gomti Nagar Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 555
Phoenix Lamps Ltd vs DCIT 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 560
Hcl Infotech Ltd v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 632
Kanika Dhingra vs. State of U.P. and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 636
M/S Jai Shree Traders v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 658
S/S J.H.V. Steels Ltd v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 670
M/S Ashish Traders v. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 688
Ankur Vikram Singh Respondent v. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 689
M/S Lakhdatar Traders v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 698
M/s A.V. Pharma Thru. Its Prop. Smt. Madhu Vohra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. and 2 Ors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 731
Agmotech Fabrics Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 735
M/S New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 737
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly, U.P. v. Dharam Singh 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 738
M/S S. G. Plastic Industries v. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 739
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawab, Noida and Anr. v. M/s Sampark Management Consultancy LLP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 750
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. v Sushil Kumar Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 751
M/s Laxmi Telecom v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 756
Dish TV India Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) and 2 Ors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 761
M/S NS Papers Limited And Another v. Union Of India Through Secretary And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 771
ORDERS/ JUDGMENTS
Case Title: M/S Mgs Palace v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 4
The Allahabad High Court has held that the writ court should not interfere in notice issued under Section 73 of the UP Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 unless there is inherent lack of jurisdiction or complete absence of relevant material is alleged and established.
The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla held that
“The satisfaction required to be recorded in terms of Section 61(3) of the Act is primarily subjective. Unless inherent lack of jurisdiction or complete absence of relevant material is alleged and established, no interference may be warranted in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
Case Title: M/S. Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 9
The Allahabad High Court has held that a minor typographical error in the e-way bill without any other material establishing an intention to evade tax will not attract a penalty under Section 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Placing reliance on the decision of Allahabad High Court in M/s. Varun Beverages Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 others, the judgment of Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (ST) and others v. M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. And another, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that
“Upon perusal of the judgments, the principle that emerges is that the presence of mens rea for evasion of tax is a sine qua non for imposition of penalty. A typographical error in the e-way bill without any further material to substantiate the intention to evade tax should not and cannot lead to the imposition of penalty.”
Case Title: M/S Eastern Machine Bricks And Tiles Industries vs. State Of U.P. And Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 14
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the registration of the assesee is cancelled, any notice for proceedings under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 shall be served on the address of the assesee. The Court observed that merely uploading notice on the web portal without any intimation to the assesee will vitiate any subsequent action as being bad in law.
Elaborating on the need for judicious application of the principle of audi alteram partem in legal and administrative proceed, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that
“In the present case, when the petitioner had cancelled its registration in the year 2019, a proper notice was required to be issued to it under Section 74 of the Act at its address. However, the authorities simply uploaded the Section 74 show cause notice on the web portal inspite of knowing that the petitioner had already cancelled its registration prior to the date of issuance of the show cause notice. This action clearly prevented the petitioner from appearing in the hearing in the original proceeding under Section 74 of the Act that was accordingly passed ex parte.”
Case Title: Akbar Ali Transport Services vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 25
The Allahabad High Court has held that the seizure of a vehicle transporting goods affects the civil rights of the transporter as the truck is a capital asset of the transporter. The Court held that the transporter ought to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing any penalty order against him.
While observing that the vehicle carrying the goods could be released under proviso-1 of Section 129 (6) of the UP Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 on payment of Rs. 1 Lakh, the bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla held that
“Truck being the valuable property and a capital asset of the transporter which is utilised to generate revenue/ income, we perceive valuable civil right of the petitioner having being adversely affected exparte.”
Case Title: M/S Roli Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 31
The Allahabad High Court has held that if the invoice accompanying the goods contains all the details of the vehicle then not filing of Part-B of the e-way bill is a technical error without any intention to evade tax. The court quashed the penalty order under Section 129(3) of the UP Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Relying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in M/s Citykart Retail Private Limited through Authorized Representative v. Commissioner Commercial Tax and Another, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that
“In the present case, the facts are quite similar to one in M/s Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra) and I see no reason why this Court should take a different view of the matter, as the invoice itself contained the details of the truck and the error committed by the petitioner was of a technical nature only and without any intention to evade tax. Once this fact has been substantiated, there was no requirement to levy penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act.”
Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax vS. M/S Peethambra Granites Pvt. Ltd.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 32
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the order of Tribunal classifying granite stone as “stone” under Entry 109 of the Schedule II Part A as per notification No.KANI-2-421/XI-9(1) dated 31.03.2011 under the Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
The bench comprising of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that
“On an interpretation of the intention of the Legislature, I am of the view that glazed stone, marble and marble chips have been specifically excluded from the definition of "stone" in Entry No.109. If the Legislature wanted to exclude granite stone, the same could have very well been done by the amendment carried out on March 31, 2011.”
Section 5 Of Limitation Act Does Not Apply To Section 107 Of CGST Act: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Garg Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 47
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to appeals filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
“The Central Goods and Services Act is a special statute and a self-contained code by itself. Section 107 of the Act has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act. It is trite law that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply only if it is extended to the special statute. Section 107 of the Act specifically provides for the limitation and in the absence of any clause condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: M/S Primeone Work Force Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Auth. Signatory Alok Kumar v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance (Deptt. Of Revenue) New Delhi And Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 49
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that before passing of any adverse order, such as imposing tax or penalty, opportunity of hearing is mandatory under Section 75(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
The bench comprising of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held “Since in the present cases, both tax and penalty are imposed against the petitioners and admittedly, an adverse decision is contemplated against the petitioners, therefore, under Section 75(4) of the Act of 2017, an opportunity of hearing was mandatorily required to be given by the department to the petitioners and merely marking the same as "NO" in the option cannot entitle the department to pass an order without giving any opportunity or even without waiting for the petitioners to appear on the date fixed.”
UPGST | Burden To Prove Intention To Evade Tax Lies Solely On Department: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Ashoka P.U. Foam (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 50
The Allahabad High Court held that the burden to prove intention to evade tax lies solely on the Department. The Court held penalties in tax laws should not be imposed solely on insignificant technical errors which do not have any financial consequences.
The Court held that penalties should only be imposed where there is concrete evidence to show that an assesee is deliberately trying to defraud the system and not in cases of unintentional mistakes.
Commercial Tax | Allahabad High Court Upholds Condonation Of 1365 Days Delay On Sufficient Cause
Case Title: M/S Royal Sanitations vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 51
The Allahabad High Court has upheld condonation of delay of 1365 days by the Commercial Tax Tribunal in filing of appeal as it was sufficiently explained by the authorities.
The Court relied on N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, where the Supreme Court had held that it is the discretion of the Court to condone delay. The delay can be very small but unjustified, and very long but condonable due to satisfactory explanation.
Case Title: Murli Packers Through Its Proprietor Rakesh Kumar Jain vs. State Of U P Through Secretary, Institutional Finance And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 52
The Allahabad High Court direct the Additional Commissioner, CGST, (Appeals), Meerut, to grant benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the petitioner and hear the appeal filed under Section 107 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 afresh.
Case Title: M/S Veira Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 54
The Allahabad High Court, on Wednesday, directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, Ministry of Finance to consider extending the benefit of extension of time to file appeal under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 to orders passed under Section 129 and Section 130 of the Act.
Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed that the Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the Central Government to include Sections 129 and 130 of the Act in the said notification. However, he observed that “the Government can very well consider adding these two Sections in the said notification, so that the benefit that has been provided for the orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act can be extended to Sections 129 and 130 of the Act.”
Case Title: M/S Associated Switch Gears and Projects Ltd. Through Its Director Jawahar Lal Jain vs. State of U.P., Through Secretary Institutional Finance U.P. Govt. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 57
The Allahabad High Court has held that authorities cannot travel beyond the show cause notice to impose penalty on the assesee.
Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that
“At its core, a show cause notice represents the initial step in an administrative or legal process, wherein an individual or entity is formally apprised of allegations or discrepancies attributed to them. This notice serves as a mechanism to afford the recipient an opportunity to present their side of the story, provide clarifications, or rectify any perceived errors before any punitive action is taken.”
Case Title: M/S Falguni Steels vs. State Of U.P. And Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 59
The Allahabad High Court has held that the writ of certiorari is discretion granted to a superior court to review and quash decisions of lower courts, tribunals, or administrative bodies and is not issued as a matter of course.
While dealing with the challenge to the order under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the subsequent order of the first appellate authority, the bench comprising of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that:
“The writ of certiorari is not issued as a matter of course, but rather it is granted at the discretion of the superior court. Generally, certiorari is issued in cases involving errors of law apparent on the face of the record, jurisdictional issues, or procedural irregularities that may have a substantial impact on the fairness and legality of the proceedings.”
Case Title: M/S Falguni Steels vs. State Of U.P. And Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 59
The Allahabad High Court has held that mere technical errors under tax laws without any financial implications should not be grounds for imposition of penalties.
While dealing with the case of goods not accompanying e-way bill, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that
“Mere technical errors, without having any potential financial implications, should not be the grounds for imposition of penalties. The underlying philosophy is to maintain a fair and just tax system, where penalties are proportionate to the gravity of the offense. In the realm of taxation, imposition of penalty serves as a critical measure to ensure compliance with tax laws and regulations.”
Case Title: M/s K.J. Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 73
The Allahabad High Court has held that before taking any adverse decision under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act 2017, an opportunity of hearing must be provided to the assesee even if there is no request on his part.
Relying on various decisions of the Allahabad High Court regarding mandatory opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that “Even if no request is received from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, an opportunity of personal hearing must be granted if any adverse decision is contemplated against such person”
Case Title: M/s Globe Panel Industries India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 74
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the penalty which was imposed due to production of expired e-way bill at the time of detention. The Court held that no intention to evade tax was established by the authorities. Since, there was no dispute regarding consignor and consignee and the description of the goods, the Court held that penalty could not be imposed for a technical error in absence of any intention to evade tax.
Case Title: Shri Durga Trading Co vs. Income Tax Officer And Another
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 75
The Allahabad High Court has held that under the new law, it is not necessary for the assessing authority to record “reasons to believe”. The Court held that the assessing authorities are only required to record bonafide satisfaction regarding escapement of income for assuming jurisdiction under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Court held that “under the amended law, it is no longer, the obligation of the Assessing Authority to record a "reason to believe", before assuming jurisdiction to reassess an assessee. A bonafide satisfaction reached as to escapement of income made suffice the test of valid assumption of jurisdiction.”
Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Cribhko Shyam Fertilizer Ltd.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 77
The Allahabad High has held that where assessee has paid far more tax than the input tax credit claimed, Section 13(1)(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 will not apply.
“Upon perusal of the documents, the finding of the Tribunal seems to be crystal clear and leaves no room for doubt. The assessee has paid far more tax than the ITC claimed, and accordingly, the rigours of Section 13(1)(f) of the Act would not be applicable to the assessee. There does not appear any need for interference in the order passed by the Tribunal.”
Case Title: M/S Kronos Solutions India Private Limited v. Union Of India And 4 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 78
The Allahabad High Court has held that the appellate authority exercising jurisdiction under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 does not have the power to remand the case back to the adjudication authority. It only has the power to confirm or modify or annul the order under appeal.
Case Title: M/S John Oakey And Mohan Limited vs. The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 91
The Allahabad High Court has held that the principle of res-judicata does not apply from one assessment year to another. However, the Court held that the Department cannot be allowed to change its stance for the same assesee for different assessment years, unless there is a marked change from one year to another.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that
“One may of course keep in mind that in taxation matters, the principles of res-judicata do not apply squarely for one assessment year to the other. However, keeping in mind the doctrine of finality, unless there is a marked change from one assessment year to the other, the department cannot be allowed to take a different stand.“
Case Title: The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow vs. S/S. D.I.C. India Ltd.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 94
The Allahabad High Court has held the revision jurisdiction under Section 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 is limited to questions of law, jurisdictional errors, or procedural. The Court held that the High Court must refrain from going into questions of facts which have been decided by the Tribunal.
“In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court has a limited mandate. The scope of revisional jurisdictional, is primarily focused on questions of law, jurisdictional errors, or procedural irregularities. The High Court in a revision petition must refrain from engaging in a de novo inquiry into factual matters already adjudicated upon by the Tribunal, unless compelling grounds warranting such intervention are made,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: M/S Yadav Steels Having Office vs. Additional Commissioner And Another
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 109
The Allahabad High Court has rejected the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in appeals filed under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The Court held that Tax laws are complete comprehensive codes which have strict procedural requirements to ensure revenue certainty and fiscal stability.
The Court observed that Section 107(4) provides for an extra one-month period over the prescribed three months for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the UPGST Act. Since the petitioner had filed the appeal after 66 days of expiration of the three months prescribed for filing appeal, the Court held that the delay could not have been condoned by the Appellate Authority.
Case Title: M/S Indeutsch Industries Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 113
The Allahabad High Court has held that in case of no discrepancies or clerical errors in the documentation, the initial burden to prove that there is intention to evade tax lies on the department.
While quashing penalty under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service tax Act, 2017, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that “It is a fact that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner in certain cases to show that there was no evasion of tax. However, when the error in the documents is only that of a clerical or typographical error, the initial burden of proof lies on the department to show there was intention to evade tax.”
Case Title: M/S Akhilesh Traders v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 114
The Allahabad High Court has held that absence of tax invoices and/or e-way bill at the time of interception and their subsequent production does not absolve the assesee from the liability of penalty under the Goods and Service Tax Act.
“Production of these documents subsequent to the interception cannot absolve the petitioner from the liability of penalty as the very purpose of imposing penalty is to act as a deterrent to persons who intend to avoid paying taxes owed to the Government,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: M/S Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of U P And 4 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 116
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the reassessment order against Flipkart and held that the burden to prove escaped assessment lies on assessing authority.
The Court observed that the burden of establishing the existence of recorded reasons was entirely on the department. Neither the petitioner was obligated to provide any material, nor was it required to assist in the formation of the reasons. Since the assessing authority wanted to assume the jurisdiction to reassess the petitioner for FY 2012–13, he took it upon himself to bring on record both the relevant material as may have led to the formation of a reason—to believe that any turnover had escaped assessment—and he further burdened himself to record the relevant reasons as to the belief of the escapement of turnover from assessment. The burden thus cast was not discharged.
Case Title: M/S Rajansh Marble House Gomti Nagar Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow And Another
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 115
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the Commercial Tax Tribunal's judgement for non-compliance with Rule 63(5) of the U.P.V.A.T. Rules, 2008. The Court observed that, as per Rule 63(5) of the U.P. V.A.T. Rules, 2008, a judgement and appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision, and the reason for the decision, which were not compiled by the Commercial Tax Tribunal while passing the judgement.
Case Title: M/S Mansoori Enterprises vs. U.O.I
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 119
The Allahabad High Court held that according to the circular dated February 9, 2018 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, and Department of Revenue, the power of the Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax, and Central Excise is limited to the matter not exceeding Rs. 10,00,000, and in the present case, the amount involved is more than Rs. 16,00,000, and consequently, the order passed by it is without jurisdiction.
Case Title: M/S Gopi Chand Batra Traders vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 126
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that search and seizure of a godown of an assesee cannot be penalised in proceedings under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The Court relied on Mahavir Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, wherein a coordinate bench had held that
“The provision of Section 129(3) of the Act could not be invoked to subject a godown premises to search and seizure operation unmindful of the Act that no action was taken or contemplated under Section 67 of the Act, as that would have mandated existence of "reasons to believe", to subject that premise to search and seize goods or documents found therein.”
Case Title: Gurdeep Singh vs. Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam Moti Jheel And Another
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 131
The Allahabad High Court has held that were a statutory appeal has been filed and the condition for pre-deposit has been complied with, stay applications filed along with such appeals must be decided within a reasonable time.
“It is necessary to observe, where statutory appeals are filed after making due compliance of pre deposit condition, it is incumbent on the learned court below to pass appropriate orders on the stay application within a reasonable time. Passing of routine orders requiring the stay application to be put up on the date fixed do not serve the cause of justice.”
Case Title: Qamar Ahmed Kazmi vs. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 133
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to the applicant accused of availing excess input tax credit as the proceedings under Section 70 and Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 were pending since long.
The Court held that the punishment for wrong availment of input tax credit is imprisonment which shall extend upto 5 years and fine under Section 69 read with section 132 of the Act. For a registered person, every second offence or thereof shall be punishable. The Court further relied on Section 138 of GST Act which provides that for compounding of all offences can be done before or after prosecution is commenced when payment is made by such person.
S.5 Limitation Act Applies To Rectification Of Orders U/S 31 Of UP VAT Act: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Sanyo Koreatex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner Trade Tax And Another
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 134
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act will apply to rectification of orders passed by officer, authority, Tribunal or the High Court under Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
Case Title: M/S Riadi Steels Llp vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 135
The Allahabad High Court has held that when the GPS tracking system showed slow movement of the truck due to mechanical issues in the engine, penalty under Section 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 could not have been imposed for not extending time-period in e-way bill. The Court held that not extending time period in such case was a technical breach.
Case Title: M/S Jhansi Enterprises Nandanpura Jhansi vs. State Of U.P. And Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 136
The Allahabad High Court has held that when the Goods and Services Tax Regime was launched in 2017, there were difficulties in downloading e-way bills. However, the difficulties were resolved and from April 2018 there were no difficulties in generating the same. The Court held that goods not accompanied by both tax invoices and e-way bill is not a common mistake. It shifts the burden on the assesee to show that there was no intention to evade tax.
Case Title: M/S Genius Ortho Industries vs. Union Of India And Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 137
While dealing with a petition against cancellation of GST registration, the Allahabad High Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can only be exercised for a petitioner who has approached the Court in good faith and with clean hands. The Court held that once there is concealment of facts, writ petition is liable to be dismissed without any relief to the petitioner.
Case Title: M/S Abhishek Sales vs. Sate Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 155
The Allahabad High Court has held that for goods in transit, vehicle number in bilty (consignment note) cannot be changed upon change of vehicle due to breakdown. The Court quashed the penalty order on grounds that vehicle number was updated in Part-B of the e-way bill.
Case Title: M/S Maa Kamakhya Trader v. Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 162
The Allahabad High Court has held that for natural products that are also grown inside India, presumption cannot arise that they have been smuggled. The Court held for assuming jurisdiction in such cases, the custom authorities must show that credible material exists to give rise to “reason to believe” to empower them to confiscate the goods under the Customs Act, 1962.
Case Title: M/S Samsung India Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that 'capital goods' as defined under Section 2 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 are for long term use whereas 'inputs' are meant for day-to-day business operations and are not capitalized in the books of accounts.
“Capital goods are intended for long-term use and are typically subject to capitalization. However, inputs, are goods used in the day-to-day operations of the business and are not subject to capitalization,” held Justice Shekhar B.
Case Title: M/S Samsung India Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170
The Allahabad High Court has held that Department travelling beyond the scope of the show cause notice undermines the right to fair hearing of an assesee and also erodes the trust in integrity and impartiality of the adjudicatory process.
The Court held that Department must clearly outline the allegations against the assesee. Under no circumstances can the Department travel beyond the allegations stated in the show cause notice as would “trample upon the recipient's right to defend itself.”
Case Title: M/S Samsung India Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170
The Allahabad High court has held that the Department must take consistent stands in identical fact situations for different tax periods as consistency is paramount in tax regime. The Court held that “the principles of consistency is sacrosanct in taxation matters.”
It was held that the Department cannot arbitrarily without the refund for a tax period when it has consistently allowed the same for other tax periods in absence on any material change in circumstances. The Court held that such denial of refund “is contrary to the principles of fairness and equity.”
Case Title: M/S Shree Sai Palace vs. State Of U.P. And Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 171
The Allahabad High Court has held that the use of word 'or' in Section 75(4) of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 is disjunctive in nature which means that there are two situations provided in which opportunity of personal hearing must be afforded to an assesee and both situations must be considered independently while applying Section 75(4).
Case Title: Grs Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Thru. Director Shri Ganga Charan Rajput vs. Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. (Revenue) Ministry Of Finance Govt. Of India , New Delhi And Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 188
The Allahabad High Court has held that the provision requiring the assesee to provide his “registered email address” to the income tax authorities under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is residuary in nature. The Court held that if the assessing authority is unable to obtain the registered email address from the income tax returns or from the designated portal of assesee or website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, then it is upon the assesee to provide the email address to the authority.
Case Title: M/S United Spirits Limited v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 222
The Court held that since Indian Made Foreign Liquor was not provided in the schedule of taxable goods under the UP Entry of goods into Local Area Act 2007, authorities had no jurisdiction to impose tax on it.
Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. V. M/S Godfrey Philips India Limited
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 223
The Allahabad High Court held that 'appeals' includes a comprehensive review encompassing both law and fact whereas 'revision' is like the power of superintendence of the High Court where the Court can only see if the decision was passed in accordance with law.
While elaborating the difference between 'appeal' and 'revision', the Court has held that in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the High court must uphold the sanctity of judgments and orders and intervene only when there are compelling reasons to do so.
Case Title: M/S Eco Plus Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 224
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the Appellate Authority has recorded a specific finding that quantification of stock was based on eye estimate and not in accordance with law, the confiscation order as well as the penalty order are liable to be set aside.
The Court further held that the authorities had acted in a callous manner by issuing the confiscation order 11 months after the survey had been conducted. The Court held that such inordinate delay in issuing show cause notice goes to the root of the matter.
Case Title: Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. S/S Soma Enterprises Ltd
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 225
Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited, the Allahabad High Court has held that input tax credit cannot be granted based solely on invoices and RTGS payment details.
The Court observed that Tribunal had recorded a specific finding that certain dealers from whom goods had been purchased were not entitled to issue of tax invoices as they were following compounding scheme. Further, it had been recorded that registration of certain dealers had been cancelled. The Court observed that despite recording such findings, the Tribunal had allowed the claim of ITC solely based on the fact that payments were made through RTGS and the assesee had submitted invoices which was not permissible.
Case Title: Durga Steel Rolling Mills Thru. Partner Amit Arora v. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes UP Lucknow
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 228
The Allahabad High Court has held that intention to evade tax is essential condition for imposing penalty under Section 54(1)(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008. Emphasizing on the word “wilful”, the Court held that order of the Assessing Authority under Section 28(2) of the UPVAT Act was based on cogent material does not indicate wilful attempt to defeat or circumvent the tax law to reduce the tax liability. The Court held that intention to evade tax is a must for imposition of penalty.
Case Title: Dipak Kumar Agarwal vs. Assessing Officer And 4 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 248
The Allahabad High Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority to decide the application for release of seized assets under Section 132B (1)(i) does not abate after a period of 120 days from the date on which the last of the authorizations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132-A was executed.
The Court held that the word “shall” in 2nd proviso to Section 132B (1)(i) is directory in nature as no stipulation is made for the automatic release of goods after the period of 120 days. It held that a levy of interest on the seized asset contemplated under Section 132B (4) does not make the “shall” in 2nd proviso to Section 132B (1)(i) mandatory in nature.
Case Title: M/S Arvind Kumar Shivhare vs. Union Of India And Another
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 249
The Allahabad High Court has held that Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal had not issued a general mandamus quashing all notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court observed that the order of Supreme Court was limited to those notices which had been challenged before the Apex Court and various High Courts in India.
Case Title: Hotel President Through Its Partner / Proprietor And Another v. State Of Up And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 251
The Allahabad High Court held that the authorities acted in undue haste by giving one day's notice for the hearing, which is not sufficient notice. The Court held that
“Issuance of notice is not an empty formality to be completed only to protect the record from a technical vice of violation of rules of natural justice. Issuance of notice and giving opportunity to respond to the notice is a real safeguard against arbitrary and capricious exercise of power by quasi judicial authorities. It runs parallel to the obligation of the quasi judicial authorities to confront the noticee with adverse material and therefore the likely reasoning that he has to meet for which such notice has been issued.”
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar Jha vs. Union of India
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 261
The Allahabad High Court has rejected bail to four persons accused of wrongfully availing input tax credit of about Rs. 315 crores on grounds that an economic offence of such magnitude may affect the economy of the country.
The Court relied on Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement where the Supreme Court held that serious view must be taken in economic offences which have deep-rooted controversies and can seriously affect the economy of the country.
Case Title: Ram Kishan Bairwa vs. Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 262
The Allahabad High Court has held that mandatory condition of pre-deposit prescribed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act for filing appeals before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot be waived under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court relied on Shri Subhash Jain v. Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax, where a division bench of the Allahabad High Court had refused to waive the pre-deposit under the Central Excise Act.
Case Title: Meera Pandey Thru. Her Attorney vs. Union Of India, Ministry Of Finance Deptt. Of Revenue (Cbdt) , New Delhi And Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 271
The Allahabad High Court has held that mere statement of the contractor doing construction work cannot be relied upon to declare such construction as benami transaction under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The Court held that “reasons to believe” in Section 24(1) of the Act must be based on cogent and relevant material.
The Court held that for invoking jurisdiction under Section 24(1) of the Act, there are two essential conditions:
“ (i) The Initiating Officer should have material in his possession and;
(ii) the material should be sufficient to cause a reason to believe.”
Case Title: Sandeep Singh v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 278
The Allahabad High Court has held that the cancellation of license under Section 34(2) of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 cannot be based on suspicion. The Court held that without there being any cogent material or evidence such harsh penalty of cancellation of license must not be invoked. The Court held that Section 34(2) of the Act is discretionary and not mandatory and it cannot be applied automatically resulting in cancellation of another excise license of a licensee.
Case Title: Mr. Pranay Dhabhai v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 299
Relying on its earlier decision in A.S. Solanki Vs. State of U.P. and others, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that tax dues cannot be collected from director of company under liquidation unless it has been provided in any statute.
The Allahabad High Court in A.S. Solanki had held that in a case where it was ascertained that the corporate veil had been used for malafide intent, the corporate personality shall be lifted so that the individuals responsible could be held liable. However, this doctrine could not be applied as a matter of course and be used to recover the dues of a company when they were unrecoverable, from the personal assets of the Directors.
Case Title: Mentha And Allied Products Ltd vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 300
The Allahabad High Court has held that computation of correct input tax credit can only be done till the passing of the regular assessment order by the Assessing Authority and not at a later stage. The Court held that reverse input tax credit is neither a 'rate of tax' nor a 'turnover' which can be subjected to reassessment under Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that “ITC did not arise as a "rate" applied to "turnover". It was an "allowance" created/arising upon fulfillment of statutory conditions. If those conditions were not fulfilled, RITC could be done, under Section 14 of the Act and also in the course of regular assessment - for reason of that power specifically vested by the legislature. No such power/jurisdiction has been vested under Section 29(1) of the Act to assume jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings to redetermine ITC or to RITC.”
Case Title: Satish Kumar Bansal Huf v. National Faceless Assessment Centre Nafac And Another
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 301
The Allahabad High Court has held that opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory under Section 144B(6)(vii) and (viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when show cause notice is issued regarding why assessment may not be completed as proposed. The Court held that once the assesee “requests” for an opportunity of personal hearing, it becomes incumbent on the Assessing Authority to grant that opportunity under Section 144B(6)(viii).
Case Title: M/S K Y Tobacco Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 319
Relying on its earlier decision in M/s Anandeshwar Traders v. State of U.P. and Others, the Allahabad High Court has held that the burden to prove double movement of goods based on same documents lies on the department.
The Allahabad High Court in M/s Anandeshwar Traders v. State of U.P. and Others held that the positive burden to prove that goods had been transported on an earlier occasion lies on the Assessing Authority. The Court had observed that since no inquiries were made from the assesee, toll plaza, purchasing dealer or any other source as to whether goods had been transported earlier, presumption could not have been drawn by the authorities merely based on the e-way bill.
Case Title: M/S Rajshi Processors Raebareli Thru. Its Partner Ashok Kumar Lakhotia v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax,Lko. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 320
The Allahabad High Court has held that the authorities are not estopped from taking action against wrongful claim of input tax credit merely because the firms with which transactions were alleged to have been done were registered at the time of the alleged transactions.
Observing that fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, held that “mere fact that the I.T.C. benefit had earlier been granted to the petitioner merely because the firms were registered, would not create any estoppel against the authority taking appropriate action for claiming refund of the benefit wrongly availed by the petitioner on the ground of receiving inward supplies from non-existent firms.”
Case Title: The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawan And Another vs. The Mahabir Jute Mills Lts. Sahjanwah Gorakhpur
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 327
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the acceptance of books of accounts by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have not been objected to by the Assessing Authority before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it is not open to the Assessing Officer to disturb the gross profit rate as declared by the assesee.
The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that
“in absence of any other objection found in the books of accounts of the assessee as may have been pressed before the Tribunal, there survives no room to reject the books of accounts of the assessee. Consequently, there is no intrinsic evidence to enhance the gross profit rate. Once the books of accounts of an assessee are found accepted the Assessing Officer may have remained within the confines of his powers ad not disturbed the gross profit rate as that would remain in the nature of the result of the book entries and not an original entry by itself.”
Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. v. M/S R.P. Milk Made Products (P) Ltd.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 328
The Allahabad High Court has held that plant and machinery sold after the closure of business are capital goods under Section 2(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and are excluded from levy of tax under the amended definition of 'business' under Section 2(e) of the Act.
The Court held that the amended definition of 'business' under Section 2(e) of the Act presumes that the goods which are being sold were acquired during the active period of business and sold after its closure. However, capital goods were intentionally left out by the legislature while amending the definition.
Case Title: M/S S Kumar Construction v. Commissioner Of Central Excise (Appeals), Central Goods And Services Tax (Appeals) And Another
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 344
The Allahabad High Court has held that the limitations prescribed under special statutes, such as Finance Act, 1994 will prevail over the limitations mentioned in the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court held that statutes such as the Finance Act, 1994 or the Central Excise Act, 1944 were enabled to address specific areas of law and that they often contained detailed provisions regarding procedural aspects such as limitation.
Option Once Exercised For A Financial Year May Not Be Withdrawn Midway: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S.Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Versus Cce Meerut
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 354
The Allahabad High Court has held that an option, once exercised for a financial year, may not be withdrawn midway. The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh has observed that the only recourse that applicant may have taken may be to apply to the jurisdictional authority to discontinue the benefit of the compounding scheme from the beginning of the next financial year, i.e., 1.4.1998. For the option to be exercised, the applicant ought to have made that application before the date i.e. 1.4.1998, and in any case before making the deposit of the compounding fee for the month of April, 1998. Having done otherwise, the applicant lost the opportunity to withdraw from the compounding scheme for the financial year 1998–99.
Case Title: Commissioner Commercial Tax, U.P. At Lucknow V. M/S Pan Parag India Limited
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 356
The Allahabad High Court has held that the franchise agreement granted a non-exclusive licence rather than a transfer of the right to use goods and the transaction does not attract Value Added Tax under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act (UPVAT Act). Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed that the respondent-department had received royalty amount from various dealers under the franchise agreement and service tax has been duly paid by it on the same. If the payments have been subjected to service tax, they cannot be recharacterized as the sale of goods to levy VAT or sales tax.
Failure To Cite Judgment Does Not Render Original Judgement Flawed: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Tata Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 357
The Allahabad High Court has held that mere failure to cite a judgement does not, in and of itself, render the original judgement flawed. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed that the review jurisdiction is not a panacea for addressing every perceived deficiency or oversight in the original judgement; rather, it is a narrow avenue reserved for rectifying errors glaringly evident on the face of the record. Failure to cite a particular judgement does not automatically invalidate the reasoning or merit of the decision under question.
Case Title: Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. Union Of India And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 358
The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under Section 148A of the Income tax Act, 1961 are summary in nature. The Court held that at the stage of passing order under Section 148A(d), the Assessing Authority has to only see if it is a “fit case” for initiation of reassessment proceedings or not. The Court held that the Assessing Authority need not go into the correctness of the material but only record its satisfaction as to the relevancy of the material for assuming jurisdiction for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act.
Case Title: M/S Ace Manufacturing Systems Limited v. State Of U P And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 360
The Allahabad High Court has held that Over Dimensional Cargo cannot be penalized by the authorities for reaching its destination in less time than estimated by travelling at a higher speed when there is no intention to evade tax. Clause 2.4 of the Circular issued by Commissioner, State Tax dated 17.01.2024 provides that Over Dimensional Cargo cannot be detained and penalty cannot be imposed only because the goods have reached the intended place earlier than the estimated time.
Case Title: M/s Avshesh Kumar v. Union of India and 2 Ors.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 380
The Allahabad High Court has held that fixing consecutive dates of hearing within the period of a week would be violative of the opportunity of hearing as envisaged under Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1994. The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that the purpose of confining the total number of adjournments was not to deny the opportunity of hearing to the noticee, but to regulate the manner in which the adjudication proceedings were to be conducted.
“Once legislature contemplates the limits the total adjournments to three dates, it does not contemplate denial of opportunity of hearing. Rather, it seeks to regulate and thereby restrict the number of total adjournments with the apparent intent to allow the adjudication proceedings to conclude in a time bound manner,” held the Court.
Case Title: M/S Abdul Rahman & Sons Versus Union Of India
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 419
The Allahabad High Court has admitted the writ petition stating that the IGST Act lacks provision for appeals provided against an order passed by the state GST Officer.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta while admitting the writ petition noted that order passed under the IGST Act, the appeal shall lie before the Central Tax Officer. However, Section 6(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017, specifically excludes the jurisdiction of the Central Tax Officers to entertain the appeal against an order passed by an officer appointed under the UPGST Act. Therefore, the Central Tax Officer does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against an order passed by an officer appointed under the
UPGST Act, 2017.
Case Title: M/S Kashi Ram Ved Prakash vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 782 of 2008]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 428
The Allahabad High Court has held that a registered dealer cannot withhold the tax realised by him from a purchasing dealer only because he had deposited an excess amount of tax at the time of the transaction. The Court held that he cannot escape the liability of depositing the tax realized under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 because a refund is due to him from assessment proceedings.
“The registered dealer after realizing the tax cannot withhold the same on the pretext that some excess amount of tax was deposited. The amount realized on the strength of Act, must be deposited and in case any amount found excess, the same will be refunded to the actual person from whom the same amount was realized as tax. The revisionist cannot get the benefit of any refund of amount while passing the assessment order,” held Justice Piyush Agrawal.
Case Title: M/S Rajdhani Arms Corporation, Lucknow Thru. Propreitor, Seema Sarna v. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P., Commercial Tax Bhawan,Lucknow [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 31 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 452
The Allahabad High Court has held that the term “ex-parte” in Rule 63(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 can be interpreted as for want of representation of the defendant after service of notice, the case may be decided on merits. However, when the appellant or his counsel is not present, the case may only be dismissed in default.
The Court held that in cases where the appellant is not present, the Tribunal must dismiss appeals “for want of prosecution” instead of deciding them on merits ex-parte.
Case Title: Pramit vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 466 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6929 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 466
The Allahabad High Court has held that Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to release vehicle during pendency of confiscation proceedings before the District Magistrate under Section 72 of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910. Section 72 provides things which are liable for confiscation including any intoxicant in respect of which any offence has been committed.
Section 72(1)(e) provides that any conveyance in which such intoxicant is being carried is liable to be confiscated. Section 72 further empowers the Collector to carry out confiscation proceedings in respect of such conveyance and inform the owner or the person from who such conveyance is seized in writing.
Case Title: Gyan Prakash Rastogi vs. Union of India [WRIT TAX No. - 195 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 479
The Allahabad High Court has held that when the assesee has asked for opportunity of personal hearing and relevant documents, both should be provided prior to passing orders under Section 148 A(d) of the Income Tax, 1961.
Petitioner and his brother run separate businesses, however they acquired a shop together. The shop was subjected to search and seizure under the Income Tax Act where certain loose documents and sheets were seized. Subsequently, petitioner was issued notice under Section 148A(b) based on certain Audit Objections.
Case Title: M/S Bgr Energy Systems Ltd v. State of U.P. and Another [WRIT TAX No. - 1026 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 487
The Allahabad High Court has held that order Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 cannot be passed a company which is under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 empowers a proper officer to initiate proceedings if he is satisfied that any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or any willful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax by any assesee.
Allahabad High Court Hold Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Guilty Of Contempt
Case Title: Prashant Chandra v. Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2 CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 562 of 2016]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 507
The Allahabad High Court has held Retired Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2 guilty of contempt of Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for assuming jurisdiction in respect of the assesee-applicant in respect of a different assessment year when the Writ Court had directed that he has no jurisdiction in respect of the assesee.
While directing one-week simple imprisonment along with file of Rs. 25,000/- against the opposite party, Justice Irshad Ali held that “Disobedience of this Court's order strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence, it is not only the third pillar but also the central pillar of the democratic State.”
Case Title: M/S Bans Steel Through Its Proprietor Alpana Jain v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 577 of 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 508
The Allahabad High Court has held that if the goods in transit are not accompanied by proper documentation, including e-way bill, the authorities can survey the business premises of the assesee to determine the correctness of the transaction. However, it was held that if the e-way bill was produced before passing of seizure order under Section 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, then contravention of the Act or Rules thereunder could not be claimed by the Department.
Case Title: Banaras Industries vs. Union of India
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 519
Referring to the decision in case of Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar Vs. Additional Commissioner [Writ Tax No. 1082 of 2022], the Allahabad High Court reiterated that even if excess stock is found at the business premises of the manufacturer, the proceedings u/s 130 of the UPGST Act cannot be initiated.
As per Section 130 of the UPGST Act, the Government may require the person in charge of a conveyance carrying any consignment of goods of value exceeding such amount as may be specified to carry with him such documents and such devices as may be prescribed. This provision lays down guidelines for confiscation of goods or conveyance and levy of penalty.
Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax V. M/S Emami Ltd. [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. – 274 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 523
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow's finding that Boro Plus Ayurvedic Cream is a 'medicated ointment' and not an 'antiseptic cream'. It was held that Boro Plus Ayurvedic Cream is taxable at 5% under Entry 41 Schedule II of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
Heading “Drugs and Medicines” in Entry 41, with effective from October 11, 2012, excludes medicated soap, shampoo, antiseptic cream, face cream, massage cream, eye jel and hair oil but includes vaccines, syringes and dressings, medicated ointments, light liquid paraffin of IP grade; Chooran; sugar pills for medicinal use in homeopathy; human blood components; C.A.P.D. Fluid; Cyclosporin.
Case Title: M/S Anil Rice Mill vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 886 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 533
The Allahabad High Court has held that production of tax invoice, e-way bill, GR or payment details is not sufficient to show the actual physical movement of the transaction for the purposes of availing Input Tax Credit under Section 16 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Section 16 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 provides for the conditions and eligibility for claiming input tax credit. Section 16(2) provides that an assesee is not entitled any input tax credit unless he possesses tax invoices or debit note issued by supplier and any other tax paying documents as may be prescribed.
Case Title: M/S Sarswat Peroxides Private Ltd. Throu Its Director v. The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P.Gomti Nagar Lko. [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 196 of 2013]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 555
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the finding of the Commercial Tax Tribunal holding that "vitamins and minerals pre-mix" are unclassified goods, do not fall under "ores and minerals", "drugs and medicines" or "chemicals” under Schedule II of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
Case Title: Phoenix Lamps Ltd vs DCIT
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 560
The Allahabad High Court reiterated that once working capital adjustment is granted to assessee, there is no need for further imputation of interest on outstanding receivables at the end of the year, as the same gets subsumed in working capital adjustment.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla reiterated that “In respect of bills raised on or after Apr 01, 2010 to its AEs, what was the date of realization and whether the same has been realized within the credit period allowed of 70 days. If not, interest is to be imputed on those bills also.”
Case Title: Hcl Infotech Ltd v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax And Another [WRIT TAX No. - 1396 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 632
The Allahabad High Court has held that for initiating proceedings under Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, it is necessary for the adjudicating authority to record prima facie satisfaction regarding the assessee having wrongfully availed input tax credit (ITC) by fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts.
The Court held that once the proceedings under Section 73 have been closed regarding wrongful availment of ITC, proceedings for the same cannot be initiated under Section 74 without recording prima facie satisfaction regarding wrongful availment of ITC by either fraud or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.
Case Title - Kanika Dhingra vs. State of U.P. and connected matters
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 636
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a mother-son duo who are accused of creating several fake companies on paper (by collecting citizens' PAN and Aadhaar card details) to fraudulently claim input tax credit (ITC) and thereby cause the government massive losses.
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed that bail could be denied in cases relating to economic offences that affect the economic fabric of society, especially if the accused holds a position of influence or power.
Case Title: M/S Jai Shree Traders v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1731 of 2024]
Case Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 658
The Allahabad High Court has granted interim relief in a writ petition challenging the order under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner was transporting Arecanuts, when the shipment was intercepted by the Mobile Squad. Due to alleged reuse of bill and e-way bills, physical verification of the goods was ordered. Though no discrepancies were found upon physical verification, an order of detention of goods was passed. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner, Sector-3, (Mobile Squad)-10, State Tax Kanpur passed and order under Section 129(3) of the Act imposing penalty on the petitioner.
Case Title: S/S J.H.V. Steels Ltd v. Union Of India And 4 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 808 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 670
The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under Section 130 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 cannot be initiated where stock is found excess at the time of survey. Section 130 of the UPGST Act provides for confiscation of goods and penalty in cases where supply, transport of goods has been made in contravention to the provisions of the Act with the intention to evade tax. It also includes penalty when an assesee does not account for the goods on which tax is to be paid.
Case Title: M/S Ashish Traders v. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 688
The Allahabad High Court has held that an assessee is entitled to fresh notices demanding unpaid tax or short tax under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, if the initial notices were not duly communicated to the assessee.
A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar relied on Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP (2024) whereby “benefit of doubt” was given to the assessee since notices issued to it did not show up on the assessee's portal under the tab "view notices and orders".
Case Title: Ankur Vikram Singh Respondent v. State of UP
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 689
The Allahabad High Court has held that the owner of an electric vehicle which was purchased prior to October 14, 2022 cannot seek refund of tax citing a subsequent notification exempting the payment of One Time Tax. Petitioner had sought refund of One Time Tax paid in respect of his Hybrid Vehicle purchased on October 13, 2022.
Case Title: M/S Lakhdatar Traders v. State Of Up And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 698
The Allahabad High Court has set aside the demand and penalty order passed under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 against a trader whose GST registration came to be suspended, after it found that the goods in transit were accompanied with proper tax invoice and e-way bill.
A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar relied on M/s Sahil Traders v. State of U.P. and another, 2023 wherein a coordinate bench had held that once the goods were found with proper tax invoice and E-way bill, the consignee will be deemed owner and goods will have to be released in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act.
Case Title: M/s A.V. Pharma Thru. Its Prop. Smt. Madhu Vohra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. and 2 Ors. [WRIT TAX No. - 264 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 731
The Allahabad High Court has held the time extension notification dated 24.04.2023 extending time period for passing orders under Section 73(9) and 73(10) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 will apply only from 31.03.2023 and not before that.
Section 73 empowers the proper officer to pass orders imposing penalty or interest where any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, after following due procedure laid down in the Section.
Case Title: Agmotech Fabrics Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [WRIT TAX No. - 1757 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 735
While deciding a case relating to Input Tax Credit, the Allahabad High Court has held that a quasi-judicial body must provide an opportunity of hearing to a person before imposing liability on them.
The Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit held that as per the doctrine of audi alteram partem (let the other side be heard as well), such orders cannot be passed without providing the assessee a proper opportunity to make present their case. It was held that documents relied upon by the authorities while passing orders must be provided to party who is being held liable.
Case Title: M/S New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Union Of India And 3 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1733 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 737
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the High Court has directed the assesee to approach the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the appeal cannot be dismissed as not maintainable.
Counsel for petitioner argued that notice and demand under Section 79 of the CGST Act were issued to the petitioner, pursuant to which it approached the High Court. The then Division Bench relegated the petitioner to alternate remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly, U.P. v. Dharam Singh [INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 85 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 738
While entertaining an Income Tax Appeal, the Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be sustained without establishing a perversity with the fact finding of the Tribunal.
“In the instant appeal the department has only challenged the fact finding off the Tribunal. A catena of Supreme Court judgments have concluded that in relation to facts, no substantial question of law would arise unless the finding of fact is perverse,” held the division bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit.
Case Title: M/S S. G. Plastic Industries v. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1576 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 739
The Allahabad High Court has directed the State Goods and Service Tax Authorities to not take action for any assessment year in which the Central Goods and Service Tax Authorities have already taken action. Petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the actions taken by the State and Central GST Authorities for the same assessment year, 2017-18. It was argued that once State GST Authorities had completed assessment proceedings under Section 74, the Central GST Authorities could not have issued notice for the assessment year.
Case Title: The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawab, Noida and Anr. v. M/s Sampark Management Consultancy LLP [INCOME TAX APPEAL
Case Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 750
The Allahabad High Court has held that no substantial question of law arises in a case where no perversity can be shown in the order passed by the Income Tax Tribunal in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for an appeal to be filed before the High Court against the decision of an Appellate Tribunal.
Case Title: The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. v Sushil Kumar Sharma [INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 86 of 2024]
Case Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 751
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the finding of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that when an agreement between parties specifies a direct transfer of money, doing so indirectly by keeping the funds in a distinct account before sending them to the final account, does not place the money under the definition of 'unexplained money' as per Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
“The CIT(A) and the Tribunal were justified in coming to the conclusion that only on account of purported infraction of the Agreement between the FRB and the assessee, without there being any dispute regarding the amount collected by the assessee which, in turn, has been deposited with the FRB, the deposits in the bank account of assessee cannot be termed as unexplained cash deposits by the assessee,” held Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar.
Case Title: M/s Laxmi Telecom v. State of U.P. and Anr.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 756
The Allahabad High Court has held that an assessee cannot file for the supply of requisite documents after the adjudicating body has accepted the plea placed by them and issued notice pursuant to it. The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the same would be impermissible, especially in a case where statutory appeal was available to the filing party.
Case Title: Dish TV India Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) and 2 Ors. [WRIT TAX No. - 1953 of 2024]
Case Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 761
The Allahabad High Court has held that an assesse claiming refund of excess TDS (tax deduction at source) is not required to fill Form 26B under the Income Tax Rules once Form 5 of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 has been issued to them.
“A perusal of the Rules would reveal that Form 26B is required to filled up if the assessee claims refund paid under Chapter XXVII-B of the Act, 1961. The Stage of requirement of filling up the Form 26B was long over in the year 2008-09 itself and the present refund was being sought by the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the VSV Act, 2020, which did not require filling up any form, as claimed by the respondents, and as such, the demand made has no sanction in law”, held Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra.
Case Title: M/S NS Papers Limited And Another v. Union Of India Through Secretary And Others [WRIT TAX No. - 408 of 2021]
Case Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 771
The Allahabad High Court has held that the resolution applicant cannot be burdened with new claims after approval of a resolution plan. The bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit held that the principle underlying the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is to give a fresh start to the successful resolution applicant. It held that any action obstructing the aforementioned principle is illegal and beyond the 'Lakshman Rekha' of the Code.
