Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up April 8 - April 14, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX 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 Syed Asim Ali vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 226 Sanjeev Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 227 Durga Steel Rolling Mills Thru. Partner Amit Arora v. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes U.P.Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 228 Prem Kumar Tripathi v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 229 Mahesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 230 North Eastern Railway vs Calstar Steel Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 231 Vinod Kumari v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 232 Smt. Kavita Tiwari v. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Irrigation And Water Resources Govt. Of U.P.Lko And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 233 The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 234 International Service Fellowship Usa vs. Harendra Kumar Masih 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 235 Blacklead Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ekana Sportz City Pvt. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 236 ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK 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 [WRIT TAX No. - 619 of 2023] Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 222 The Allahabad High Court has quashed 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. Provisional assessment order against the petitioner was passed on 19.04.2006 under Section 4-A (Realization Of Tax Through Manufacturer) of the Uttar Pradesh Entry of Goods into Local Area Tax Act, 2000 read with Rule 41(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Rule 2000. Final assessment order was passed on 30.03.2008 under the UP Entry of goods into Local Area Act 2007. S.58 UPVAT | In Revisional Jurisdiction, HC Must Uphold Sanctity Of Judgments/Orders, Must Intervene Only When There Are Compelling Reasons: Allahabad HCv Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. V. M/S Godfrey Philips India Limited [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION NO.150 OF 2023] Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 223 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. “High Courts, in their capacity as revisional bodies, are entrusted with the solemn duty of upholding the sanctity of such judgments and orders, and such, should not lightly disturb them unless compelling reasons of paramount significance necessitate such intervention,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf. 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 [WRIT TAX No. - 916 of 2022] 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. “When the Appellate Authority had come to the finding that the officers in the survey did not carry out the quantification of the stock in the correct manner, there was no reason for the Appellate Authority to uphold the confiscation and penalty,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf. 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. [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 110 of 2023] 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. While dealing with Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 the Supreme Court in M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited held that burden to prove that claim for input tax credit and the genuineness of the transaction lies solely on the assesee. The Court held that mere production of invoices and payments made by cheques is not enough to prove that the assesee is entitled to ITC. Hindu Leader Kamlesh Tiwari Murder | 'Case Of Extreme...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up April 8 - April 14, 2024

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags