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

ORDERS/ JUDGMENTS

UP GST | No Interference Under Article 226 Unless Inherent Lack Of Jurisdiction Or Absence Of Relevant Material Established: Allahabad High Court

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.”

Typo Error In E-Way Bill, Penalty Can't Be Imposed If There Is No Intention To Evade Tax: Allahabad High Court

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.”

CGST Act | Once Registration Is Cancelled, Uploading Notice On Portal Not Sufficient Notice, Must Be Given At Assesee's Address: Allahabad HC

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.”

UPGST | Truck Is Capital Asset Of Transporter, Seizure Without Notice Affects Civil Rights: Allahabad High Court

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.”

UPGST | Invoice Contains Vehicle Details, Error In Not Filling Part-B Of E-Way Bill Technical: Allahabad High Court Quashes Penalty Order

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.”

VAT Act | Granite Stone Falls Within Definition Of Stone Under Entry 109, Taxable At 5%: Allahabad High Court

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.

UPGST | Opportunity Of Hearing Mandatory Under S75(4) Before Imposing Tax/Penalty: Allahabad High Court

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.

[Limitation Act] Allahabad High Court Extends Benefit Of Exclusion Of Time U/S.14 To Appeals Under S.107 CGST Act

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.

CGST Act | Time Extension For Filing Appeal Against Orders U/S 73, 74 Can Be Extended To Orders U/S 129, 130: Allahabad HC Asks CBIT To Consider

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.”

GST | Show Cause Notice A Vital Checkpoint, Delineates Boundaries Within Which Any Authority Can Operate: Allahabad High Court

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.”

Writ Of Certiorari Not Issued As A Matter Of Course, But Granted At Discretion Of Superior Court: Allahabad High Court

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.”

GST | Technical Error Without Any Financial Implications Do Not Attract Penalties: Allahabad High Court

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.”

75(4) UPGST Act| Even If There Is No Request For Personal Hearing, Must Be Heard Before Adverse Decision: Allahabad High Court

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”

UPGST | Expired E-Way Bill, But No Intention To Evade Tax: Allahabad High Court Quashes Penalty Order

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.

S.148 Income Tax| For Assumption Of Jurisdiction Satisfaction Needs To Be Bonafide, No Need To Record “Reason To Believe”: Allahabad High Court

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.”

UP VAT Act | Where Assessee Has Paid Far More Tax Than Input Tax Credit Claimed, Section 13(1)(f) Will Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

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.”

S 107 CGST | Appellate Authority Does Not Have Power To Remand Case Back To Adjudication Authority: Allahabad High Court

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.

Res-Judicata Does Not Apply In Tax Matters, But Doctrine Of Finality Applies Unless There Is Marked Change: Allahabad High Court

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.“

UPVAT Act | Revision Jurisdiction Of High Court Limited To Questions Of Law, Jurisdictional Errors Or Procedural Irregularities: Allahabad High Court

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.

Limitation Act And Tax Appeals | Allahabad High Court Rejects Application Under Limitation Act, Holds Tax Statue Will Prevail

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.

GST | Only Typographical/ Clerical Error In Documents, Initial Burden On Department To Prove Intention To Evade Tax: Allahabad High Court

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.”

GST | Production Of Invoice, E-Way Bill After Detention Does Not Absolve Assessee Of Penalty: Allahabad High Court

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.

Burden To Prove Escaped Assessment Lies On Assessing Authority: Allahabad High Court Quashes Reassessment Order Against Flipkart

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.

Allahabad High Court Quashes Commercial Tax Tribunal's Judgement For Non-Compliance Of Rule 63(5) Of U.P. V.A.T. Rules, 2008

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.

GST & Central Excise Superintendent Has No Jurisdiction To Pass Order Exceeding Rs.10,00,000: Allahabad High Court

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.

UPGST | Search And Seizure Of Godown Can't Result In Penalty Proceedings U/S 129 Of Act: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

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.”

Where Statutory Appeals Filed After Making Pre-Deposit, Stay Applications Must Be Decided In Reasonable Time: Allahabad High Court

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.”

Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Applicant Accused Of Availing Excess Input Tax Credit, As Proceedings U/S 70 And 74 Pending Since Long

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.

GST | Truck Moving Slowly Due To Fault In Engine, Not Extending E-Way Bill Technical Breach: Allahabad HC Quashes Penalty U/S 129

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.

No Difficulties In Generating E-Way Bill After April 2018: Allahabad High Court Upholds Penalty U/S 129 GST For Late Production Of E-Way Bill

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.

Writ Jurisdiction Discretionary, To Be Exercised For Petitioners Acting In Good Faith, With Clean Hands: Allahabad High Court

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.

GST | Vehicle Number In 'Bilty' Couldn't Be Changed As Goods Were In Transit, E-Way Bill Was Updated: Allahabad HC Quashes Penalty Order

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.

Customs Act | “Reason To Believe” For Confiscation Of Goods Must Be Based On Credible Material: Allahabad High Court

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.

CGST | 'Capital Goods' Are For Long-Term Use, 'Inputs' For Day-To-Day Operations, Not Capitalized In Books Of Accounts: Allahabad HC Clarifies

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.

CGST | Travelling Beyond SCN Erodes Trust In Integrity & Impartiality Of Adjudicatory Process: Allahabad High Court

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.”

Consistency Sacrosanct In Taxation Matters, Department Can't Take Different Stand In Identical Situations: Allahabad HC Grants Relief To Samsung

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.”

S75(4) UPGST | 'Or' Is Disjunctive In Nature, Each Option To Be Considered Independently: Allahabad High Court

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).

S.144B Income Tax | Burden to Provide Registered Email Shifts On Assessee Only If It Can't Be Obtained From ITR/Portal/MCA Website: Allahabad HC

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.

Entry Tax | Indian Made Foreign Liquor Not Taxable Under UP Entry Of Goods Into Local Area Act 2007: Allahabad High Court

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.

S.58 UPVAT | In Revisional Jurisdiction, HC Must Uphold Sanctity Of Judgments/Orders, Must Intervene Only When There Are Compelling Reasons: Allahabad HC

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.

Confiscation & Penalty Order Must Be Quashed If Quantification Of Stock Based On Eye Estimate: Allahabad High Court

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.

S.16 UPVAT Act | Invoices, RTGS Details Not Sufficient For Deciding ITC Claim, Transportation Details Must Be Produced: Allahabad High Court

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.

UPVAT | Intention To Evade Tax Essential For Imposition Of Penalty U/S 54(1)(2): Allahabad High Court

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.

S.132B(1)(i) Income Tax Act | Power Of Assessing Authority To Decide Application For Release Of Seized Assets Not Automatically Abated After 120 Days: Allahabad HC

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.

[Income Tax Act] Supreme Court Decision In UOI v. Ashish Agarwal Applicable To Parties Who Challenged Notice U/S 148: Allahabad High Court

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.

[House Tax] Authorities Acted In Undue Haste By Giving Only One Day's Notice For Hearing: Allahabad High Court Quashes Assessment Order

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.”

Wrongful Utilization Of Input Tax Credit Amounting To ₹315 Cr May Affect County's Economy: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail

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.

[Central Excise Act] Mandatory Pre-Deposit U/S 35F For Filing Appeal Before CESTAT Can't Be Waived In Writ Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court

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.

Statement Of Contractor Without Supporting Material Not Enough To Declare Transaction Benami: Allahabad HC Quashes Benami Transaction Proceedings

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.”

[United Provinces Excise Act 1910] Cancellation Of License Can't Be Due To Suspicion, Must Be Based On Cogent Material: Allahabad High Court

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.

Tax Dues Can't Be Collected From Director Of Company Under Liquidation Unless Provided By Some Statute: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

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.

UPVAT | Computation Of Correct ITC Be Examined By Assessing Authority Not Later Than Stage Of Making Regular Assessment Order: Allahabad High Court

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.”

S.144B(6) Income Tax Act | If Assessee “Requests” Then Opportunity Of Personal Hearing Is Mandatory, Not Optional: Allahabad High Court

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).

S.129(3) UPGST| Burden To Prove Double Movement Of Goods Based On Same Documents Lies On The Department: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

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.

S.16 GST| Authorities Not Estopped From Taking Action Against Wrongful Claim Of ITC Based On Non-Existent Firms: Allahabad High Court

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.”

[Income Tax] Once Books Of Accounts Not Objected To Before Tribunal, AO Can't Disturb Gross Profit Rates Applied By Assesee: Allahabad High Court

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.”

S.2(e) UPVAT| Plant, Machinery Sold After Closure Of Business Are Capital Goods, Excluded From Levy Of Tax: Allahabad High Court

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.

[S.85 Finance Act 1994] Limitation Period Prescribed In Special Statutes Prevails Over Limitation Act: Allahabad High Court

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.

Franchise Agreement Granted Non-Exclusive Licence Rather Than Transfer Of Right To Use Goods, VAT Not Payable: Allahabad High Court

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.

[Income Tax Act] Proceedings U/S 148A Summary In Nature, Assessing Authority To Only See If It Is “Fit Case” For Reassessment: Allahabad HC

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.

Over Dimensional Cargo Can't Be Penalized For Reaching Earlier Than Estimated Time: Allahabad High Court

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.

[Central Excise Act] Fixing Consecutive Dates of Hearing on Very Short Notice Violative of Opportunity of Hearing U/S 33A: Allahabad High Court

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.