Allahabad High CourtAllahabad High Court Grants Bail To Applicant Accused Of Availing Excess Input Tax Credit, As Proceedings U/S 70 And 74 Pending Since LongCase Title: Qamar Ahmed Kazmi vs. State of U.P. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 131The 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...
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Qamar Ahmed Kazmi vs. State of U.P.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 131
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.
Case Title: Mr. Pranay Dhabhai v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
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 the director of a company under liquidation unless it has been provided in any statute.
Case Title: Mentha And Allied Products Ltd vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
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.
Case Title: M/S K Y Tobacco Works Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
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.
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
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.
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.
Case Title: M/S S Kumar Construction v. Commissioner Of Central Excise (Appeals), Central Goods And Services Tax (Appeals) And Another
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.
Case Title: Ns Agro And Engineering Products v. State of U.P. and Another
While dealing with the non-compliance of mandatory provision for opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Allahabad High Court directed the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Uttar Pradesh to take remedial action, including disciplinary proceedings against erring adjudicating authorities for violating principles of natural justice without justifiable reasons.
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
The Allahabad High Court has held that an option, once exercised for a financial year, may not be withdrawn midway.
Case Title: Commissioner Commercial Tax, U.P. At Lucknow V. M/S Pan Parag India Limited
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).
Failure To Cite Judgment Does Not Render Original Judgement Flawed: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Tata Steel Ltd. versus Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow
The Allahabad High Court has held that mere failure to cite a judgement does not, in and of itself, render the original judgement flawed.
Case Title: M/S Ace Manufacturing Systems Limited v. State Of U P And 3 Others
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.
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) 132
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) 133
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) 134
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.
Case Title: M/S Genius Ortho Industries vs. Union Of India And Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 135
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.
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)
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 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170 [Writ Tax No. 777 of 2022]
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.
Case Title: M/S Shree Sai Palace vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 171
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: M/S Samsung India Electronics Private Limited V. 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.
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.
Case Title: M/s K.J. Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 73 [Writ Tax No. 1544 of 2022]
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.
Case Title: M/s Globe Panel Industries India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 74
Recently, 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: M/S Mansoori Enterprises Versus U.O.I.
The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court has quashed the order by the GST and Central Excise Superintendent for lack of jurisdiction.
Case Title: M/S Kronos Solutions India Private Limited v. Union Of India And 4 Others
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.
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.
Case Title: Ms Atlas Cycles Haryana Ltd v. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 95
The Allahabad High Court has held that not filing a reply to a show cause notice does not take away the opportunity for personal hearing mandated under Section 75(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Case Title: M/S Hawkins Cookers Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 96
Recently, while quashing penalty order passed under Section 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 against M/s Hawkins Cookers Limited, the Allahabad High Court cited the Arthashastra by Chanakya.
Case Title: Visible Alpha Solutions India Private Limited vs. Commissioner, CGST Appeals, Noida And Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 97
The Allahabad High Court has held that requirement of self-certified copy of order is not applicable to the appeals filed electronically under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 108 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
Case Title: M/S Yadav Steels Having Office vs. Additional Commissioner
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.
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.
Case Title: M/S Indeutsch Industries Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
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.
Case Title: M/S Akhilesh Traders v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
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.
Case Title: M/S Rajansh Marble House Gomti Nagar Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow And Another
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.
Case Title: M/S Gopi Chand Batra Traders v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
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.
Case Title: Murli Packers Through Its Proprietor Rakesh Kumar Jain vs. State Of U P Through Secretary, Institutional Finance
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 52
On Wednesday, the Allahabad High Court directed 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 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 54 [WRIT TAX No. - 1188 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 54
The Allahabad High Court 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.
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 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 57
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.
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.
Case Title: M/S Falguni Steels vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 59
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.
Case Title: M/S Mgs Palace v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
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.
Case Title: Akbar Ali Transport Services vs. State of U.P. and Another 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.
Case Title: M/S Roli Enterprises vs. State Of U.P.
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.
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.
Case Title: M/S Primeone Work Force Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Auth. Signatory Alok Kumar v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance
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.
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
On Wednesday, 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.
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.
Case Title: M/S. Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1400 of 2019]
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.
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 assessee.
Case Title: M/S United Spirits Limited v. State Of U.P.
The Allahabad High Court has recently quashed the assessment order taxing Indian Made Foreign Liquor under the UP Entry of goods into Local Area Act 2007 on grounds that it is not provided in the schedule to the Act.
Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. V. M/S Godfrey Philips India Limited
While elaborating the difference between 'appeal' and 'revision', the Allahabad High 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
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.
Case Title: Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. S/S Soma Enterprises Ltd.
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.
Case Title: Durga Steel Rolling Mills Thru. Partner Amit Arora v. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes U.P.Lucknow
The Allahabad High Court has held that intention to evade tax is an essential condition for imposing penalty under Section 54(1)(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
Case Title: Ram Kishan Bairwa vs. Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
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.
Case Title: Sandeep Singh v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
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.
Case Title: M/s Avshesh Kumar v. Union of India and 2 Ors.
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.
Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: M/s. Bihar Foundry & Castings Ltd. Versus Union of India
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 37
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the issuance of pre-SCN consultation is mandated under proviso to Section 28(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, before issuing the show cause notice.
Case Title: Vivek Narsaria Versus The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 19
The Jharkhand High Court has opined that the Preventive Wing of the CGST and DGGI Wing of the CGST shall forward all their investigation carried out as against the petitioner and inter-related transactions to the State Authorities, who shall continue with the proceedings from the same stage.
Case Title: Abdul Satar Vs Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax & CX (Jharkhand High Court)
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 56
In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has permitted the filing of an application for revocation of cancelled GST registration, despite the expiration of the limitation period.
Case Title: Urmila International Services Private Limited Versus Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 57
The Jharkhand High Court has held that Rule 15 of the Jharkhand Excise (Operation of Retail Product Shops through Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited) Rules, 2022, and the corresponding clauses of the contract have to be restricted only to those situations where the placement agency has been found, albeit after hearing the agency, to have failed to provide manpower to Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (JSBCL), which has resulted in pecuniary loss to the corporation.
Case Title: State of Jharkhand Versus M/s. Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 17
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has acted in undue haste in disposing of the revision application. It is trite law that if an authority acts in undue haste, malice in law is to be presumed, and his action is deemed to be mala fide.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Central G.S.T. & Central Excise, Ranchi Versus Bihar Foundary and Casting Ltd.
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the determination of the value of the excisable goods for the purpose of assessment falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Case Title: Sri Gopikrishna Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Versus The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 72
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the action of Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam (JBVNL) offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India by refusing to reimburse contractor GST impact on indirect transactions.
Punjab And Haryana High Court
Punjab And Haryana High Court Stays CBIC-Circular Concerning Taxability Of Corporate Guarantees
Case Title: M/S Acme Cleantech Solutions Pvt Ltd V/S Union Of India And Others
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) concerning the taxability of corporate guarantees.
Case Title: M/S Shri Balaji Agro Industries V/S State Of Punjab And Another
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that suspension of GST registration is deemed to be revoked if a show cause notice is not decided within 30 days of reply.
Case Title: M/s Garg Rice Mills & others Vs. State of Punjab & others
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a notice to the government in a plea challenging the extension of the limitation period under Section 168A of the GST Act.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Commissioner Of Customs (Port), Kolkata Versus M/S. Sandeep Kumar Dikshit
The Calcutta High Court has held that the supplementary show cause notice, although termed the supplementary, is actually an independent show cause notice even though it relates to the case of smuggling.
Case Title: Ankit Kumar Agarwal Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Taltala Charge & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court has held that ignoring GSTR-9 causes prejudice to taxpayers's rights when errors committed are revenue neutral.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 149
Case Title: Saila Ghosh Versus State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court, while dismissing the appeal of the assessee, upheld the 50% waiver of the interest on property tax.
Case Title: Lokenath Construction Private Limited Versus Tax/Revenue Government Of West Bengal And Others
The Calcutta High Court has held that the adjudicating authority, without resorting to any action against the supplier, who is the selling dealer, ignored the tax invoices produced by the appellant as well as the certificates issued by the Chartered Accountants, which are erroneous and wholly without jurisdiction.
Case Title: Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) Versus Shri Rajendra Kumar Damani @ Raju Damani
The Calcutta High Court has held that it is the duty cast upon the court to examine the correctness of the validity of the retraction, the point of time at which the retraction was made, whether the retraction was consistent, and whether it was merely a ruse.
Case Title: Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited Versus Union of India
The Sikkim High Court has held that when a procedure is prescribed, the petitioner, while seeking the grant of budgetary support, is required to follow that procedure and not work out a different procedure for the authorities to follow.
Case Title: M/S. Anurag Steel Enterprise Versus Commissioner Of Cgst & Central Excise, Howrah Cgst & Cx Commissionerate
The Calcutta High Court has held that the alleged retraction on the grounds of the appeal filed before the Commissioner after a period of three years and nine months was rightly rejected by the Commissioner of Appeals.
Case Title: Adani Wilmar Limited and another Vs. The State of West Bengal and others
The Calcutta High Court has held that Adani Wilmar is eligible for sanction of incentives under the West Bengal State Support for Industries Scheme, 2008, post GST.
Case Title: Mr. Raj Sahai vs. the State of West Bengal & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court has quashed the complaint against the director as the prosecution failed to implead the company importing liquors not for sale.
Case Title: M/S Saraf Trexim Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax And Ors.
The Calcutta High Court has quashed the 200% penalty and held that the e-way bill generated for exporting goods to Bangladesh expired due to an accident
Payment To Third Party Instead Of Selling Dealer, ITC Not Allowable: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that the writ petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of input tax credit as he has not paid the amount to the selling dealer but to a third party.
Case Title: M/s Himadri Speciality Chemical & Anr. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 12
The Calcutta High Court has quashed the ex parte order imposing excise duty on the incineration of lean gas used in the generation of electricity.
Case Title: Ashish Kumar Sharma Versus The Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Bureau Of Investigation, South Bengal, Howrah Zone And Others
The Calcutta High Court has held that the GST department cannot compute the penalty amount on a higher value than the invoice value without proper evidence and reason.
Case Title: Commissioner Of Customs (Port), Kolkata Versus M/S. Dredging Corporation Of India Limited
The Calcutta High Court has held that when the goods are still in use, the question of passing the burden of customs duty does not arise, and the question of unjust enrichment will not be applicable.
Gauhati High Court
Gauhati High Court Stays SCN Seeking Reversal Of ITC On Account Of Default At Supplier's End
Case Title: M/S Surya Business Private Limited Versus The State Of Assam
The Gauhati High Court has granted the interim stay of Show Cause Notice in the case of Surya Business Private Limited, seeking reversal of ITC on account of default at the supplier's end.
Case Title: Sri Subhash Agarwalla Versus State Of Assam And 4 Ors.
The Gauhati High Court has held that two parallel proceedings in respect of the same period are not permissible as per the CGST/SGST Act.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 40
Case Title: Premier Cryogenics Limited Versus The Commissioner Central Excise And Service Tax
The Gauhati High Court has held that it is not mandatory for the assessee to install all capital goods in the year of procurement itself so as to avail CENVAT credit.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title: NEPRA Resources Management Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 69
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that the Notified Area Authority, Vapi, does not qualify as a local authority or governmental authority. As a result, the Solid Waste Management and recycling services provided to it are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated 30th June 2017.
Case Title: Vimal Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 70
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the imposition of a 12 percent tax on Mango Pulp since the inception of GST. The court clarified that Circular No. 179/11/2022-GST dated August 3, 2022, and Notification No. 06/2022 dated July 13, 2022, simply reinforce that mango pulp falls under the 12 percent GST bracket, specifically after the inclusion of "Mangoes (other than mangoes, sliced, dried)" following guava.
Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Metal Industries Proprietor In Rs. 6.67 Crore GST Evasion Case
Case Title: Dipen Champaklal Shah Vs State of Gujarat
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 71
The Gujarat High Court has granted bail in a case of GST evasion amounting to Rs. 6.67 Crores to the proprietor of Metal Industries, a business engaged in manufacturing and trading brass products, metal scrap, etc. in Jamnagar after 79 days of cost.
Case Title: JATINBHAI PRAFULBHAI KAKKAD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 29
The Gujarat High Court has granted bail for an individual implicated in a case related to an FIR filed under Sections 132(1)(b) and (1) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The case revolves around the purported issuance of GST invoices without actual delivery of goods, allegedly resulting in a significant financial loss to the government treasury.
Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Mitesh Dilipbhai Sejpal
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 31
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the State against the order granting regular bail to an accused in a multi-crore scam case.
Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 1466 Crore Alleged GST Scam Case
Case Title: HITESH PRABHUDAS LODHIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 30
The Gujarat High Court has granted bail to a man in a case involving an alleged GST scam amounting to Rs. 1466 crores.
Case Title: Madhaviben Jitendrabhai Rupareliya vs State of Gujarat
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 4
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that the charge of the Secured Creditor will precede the charge of an Unsecured Creditor.
Case Title : Shiv Crackers Vs Chief Commissioner of CGST & C.E. & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 45
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) can be utilized for making pre-deposits in appeals under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner Central Gst And Central Excise Versus M/S Nayara Energy Ltd.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 52
The Gujarat High Court has allowed the cenvat credit on welding electrodes, welding wire, etc. used for laying rail lines outside factories.
Telangana High Court
Case Title: Prahitha Construction Private Limited vs Union of India and 3 others
The Telangana High Court has held that Goods and Service Tax (GST) is payable on the transfer of land development rights under a joint development agreement (JDA).
Case Title: Central Board of Excise and Customs vs. M/s. GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited, Rep. by its General Manager & Ors.
The Telangana High Court holds 'Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009' by way of which cost of living expenses were recoverable from the Customs Cargo Service Provider as ultra vires of the Customs Act, 1962.
Kerala High Court
Yoga And Meditation Charges Are Subjected To Tax Under Kerala Tax On Luxuries Act: Kerala High Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 125
Case Title: Bethsaida Hermitage & Tourism (P) Ltd Versus State Tax Officer
The Kerala High Court has held that yoga and meditation charges are subjected to tax under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 336
Case Title: M/S.I.T.I.LTD Versus State Of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has held that a claim for exemption in respect of transit sales must be justified by showing the sale as having occurred in transit.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 341
Case Title: M/S M.Trade Links Versus Union Of India
The Kerala High Court has held that the time limit to avail ITC is November 30th in each financial year from the beginning of the GST regime.
Kerala High Court Allows Dealer To Correct Copy Of Stock Inventory Uploaded Along With Returns
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 368
Case Title: Usha Bagri Versus The Assistant Commissioner
The Kerala High Court has allowed the dealer to correct a copy of stock inventory uploaded along with returns.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 374
Case Title: M/S. DLF Home Developers Limited Versus State Of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has held that the statutory scheme for determining the taxable turnover of a works contract under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) does not suffer from any defect so as to render it unworkable to effectuate the charge to tax on a works contract.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 40
Case Title: M/S. Professional Copier Services India (Pvt) Ltd Versus State Of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has quashed the penalty under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act and held that re-sellers of machines have not wilfully classified machines under the wrong head and have adopted the same classification as the seller.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/S. V.K. Niranjan And Co Versus Commissioner Of Service Tax
The Karnataka High Court has held that the service tax has been paid with accrued interest even before the show cause notice has reached the review petitioner.
Case Title: M/S Hatsoff Helicopter Training P Limited Versus State Of Karnataka
The Karnataka High Court has held that tax exemption cannot be denied to the government's helicopter pilot trainer merely for non-furnishing goods and service tax identification numbers (GSTIN) initially.
SCN Can't Be Issued Prior To Finalisation Of Audit Proceedings; Karnataka High Court Stays Order
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 277
Case Title: M.S. Service Station Versus UOI
The Karnataka High Court has stayed the order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 on the grounds that the show cause notice cannot be issued prior to the finalization of audit proceedings.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Emery Cloth Is Cotton Coated Fabric And Liable To Be Exempted From Tax: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: The State of Andhra Pradesh Versus Mohsin Brothers
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that emery cloth is cotton coated fabric and liable to be exempted from tax.
Case Title: M/s. Foods, Fats and Fertilizers Limited Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the assessee or petitioner does not have a right to cross-examine the officials of the Tax Department of Bombay on the F-Forms submitted by the dealer.
Belated Deposit Of TDS, Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Prosecution Against Assessee
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AP)47
Case Title: M/s Aditya Institute Of Technology And Management Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the prosecution proceedings launched against the assessee for belatedly depositing tax deducted at source (TDS).
Assessment Order Passed Against Dead Person Is Nullity: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Smt. Sowmya S. Versus ITO
The Karnataka High Court, while quashing the assessment order, held that the assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act amounts to nullity.
Orissa High Court
Reassessment Order Can't Merely Be Based On Tax Evasion Report Or An Audit Report: Orissa High Court
Case Title: M/s.Hindustan Tyre House Versus Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax
The Orissa High Court has held that reassessment orders cannot merely be based on a tax evasion report or an audit report.
Meghalaya High Court
Right Of Appeal Relating To Value Of Service Maintainable Before Supreme Court: Meghalaya High Court
Case Title: The Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax and Central Excise Versus M/s Walchandnagar Industries Limited
The Meghalaya High Court has held that the right of appeal relating to the value of service is maintainable before the Supreme Court.