Goods and Services Tax – GST – By: – Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN – Dated:- 8-5-2018 – Implementation of e-way bill The implementation of e-way bill has caused more delay because of the improvements to be done in the portal system. The Central Government has announced that the e-way bill system would be applicable for the inter-State transactions with effect from 01.02.2018 and the States would implement the e-way bill system for intra-State transactions by 1st June, 2018. Because of the glitches in the system, the Central Government postponed the implementation date and finally it has been implemented with effect from 01.04.2018. The States are advised to implement the same before 1st June, 2018. E-way bill operations are now available for the following States- E-way bill operations are compulsory for intra-state movement of goods for Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala, Telangana and Uttar Pradesh from 15th April 2018; E-way bill operationsare compulsory for intra-state movement of goods for Bih
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
there was some problem in downloading the E-way Bill. The High Court directed to release the vehicles and goods subject to deposit of bank guarantee, equal to the value of the tax on goods. In Abicor and Binzel Technoweld Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Union of India and Another – 2018 (2) TMI 766 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT, the petitioner says that the Electronic Way Bills Rules have yet to come into force. Therefore, without access to the online profile, the petitioner cannot generate E-way bills. Without such E-way bills, the petitioner will not be allowed to move the goods anywhere and that will paralyze its business. Lack of access would mean that the petitioner is unable to file return or pay tax or undertake any other compliance required by the statute. The High Court held that the special sessions of Parliament or special or extraordinary meetings of Council would mean nothing to the assessees unless they obtain easy access to the website and portals. The regime is not tax friendly. The High C
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
dication provided for under section 129 after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within a week from the date of receipt of the order. Seizure before effective date In Modern Traders V. State of UP – 2018 (4) TMI 1076 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (decided on 03.04.2018) the goods were transported from Bhulandshahr to Delhi. There was no e-way bill during the movement of goods, while the vehicle was crossing Ghaziabad. The vehicle was intercepted and detained at Ghaziabad by the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad on 24.03.2018. The vehicle was seized on the ground that there was no e-way bill. A show cause notice dated 28.03.2018 was issued under section 129(3) of the Act, The petitioner was directed to appear on 04.04.2018 and explain as to why the tax @ 18% and equivalent amount of penalty may not be imposed. The petitioner, therefore, approached the High Court invoking writ jurisdiction. The petitioner, in this writ petition contended that- There is no requirement to carr
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
s in the present case the transaction is much before the aforesaid date. The High Court directed respondent No. 3 to release the goods and vehicle. In M/s Bhumika Enterprises V. State of U.P. And 3 Others – 2018 (4) TMI 530 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, from perusal of the record the High Court have noticed that the vehicle has been detained and the goods/vehicle was seized by the respondent no.4 on 27.3.2018 whereas the time has been granted for submission of reply and appearance of the person concerned before the respondent no.4 on the later date. There is no dispute with regard to quality and quantity of the goods and further that the invoice issued clearly indicates of charge of C.G.S.T. and S.G.S.T by the petitioner. The High Court further noticed that there is no dispute with regard to registration of the seller (the petitioner) and the purchaser as also that the goods were being transported from Varanasi to Fatehpur which are detained in between the aforesaid two places. The High Cour
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d seizure order nor the details of the mobile number holder. Since the tax invoice indicating the tax charged and the same admittedly found during the course of inspection/detention and E-way bill-02 has been downloaded much before the seizure order, the High Court saw no justification in the impugned seizure order and therefore, the High Court have no option but to allow the present writ petition and to set aside the seizure order dated 27.3.2018 as well as the show cause notice issued under Section 129(3) of the Act for imposition of penalty. Justification for seizure In Surendra Steel Supply Company Versus State of U.P. And Another – 2018 (5) TMI 526 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, (decided on 11.04.2018) the vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted at Kanpur on 01.04.2018 at about 9-30 a.m. by respondent no. 2 and interception/detention memo was issued on the ground that since the E-Way Bill No.01 is not available as such the physical verification of the goods loaded is to be made and fi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e as the Central Government has suspended the requirement of E-Way Bill No.01 on 01.02.2018. The Revenue has not been able to justify the impugned order in the facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court required respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad-XI, Kanpur, U.P. to appear before the Court day after tomorrow (13.04.2018) to explain as to under which authority of law he intercepted the vehicle and passed the seizure order despite E-Way Bill No.01 was generated and produced. Non mentioning of vehicle number In VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of U.P. And Another – 2018 (5) TMI 455 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, (decided on 13.04.2018) the detention was made on the ground that Part-B of e-way bill was incomplete. The contention of the petitioner before the authority below was that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to evade payment of tax during the course of intra-state sale of the goods. The High Court Held that no ill inten
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =