- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Allahabad High Court upholds Tax and Penalty imposed u/S. 129(3) of UPGST due to Mismatch of Invoice details.
Allahabad High Court upholds Tax and Penalty imposed u/S. 129(3) of UPGST due to Mismatch of Invoice details. The Allahabad High Court upheld the assessment order, imposing tax and penalty since there was a mismatch of invoice details with the verifying sheets of the mobile squad.A Single Judge bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi in the High Court of Allahabad, dealt with this matter...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Allahabad High Court upholds Tax and Penalty imposed u/S. 129(3) of UPGST due to Mismatch of Invoice details.
The Allahabad High Court upheld the assessment order, imposing tax and penalty since there was a mismatch of invoice details with the verifying sheets of the mobile squad.
A Single Judge bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi in the High Court of Allahabad, dealt with this matter titled M/s. Ranchi Carrying Corporation v. Additional Commissioner & Ors.
The Petitioner – Company had challenged the assessment order passed by the Respondent – Authorities, which imposed a tax and penalty of Rs.12,64,529/- on the Petitioner u/S. 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (UPGST). This petition arose because the Income Tax Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner – Company challenging the said order.
The Judge noted that a previous petition of the Petitioner – Company challenging the assessment order u/S. 130 of the UPGST was filed before this Court, wherein the Court disposed of that petition in favour of the Petitioner by providing an opportunity to file a fresh reply.
The present order which was under challenge was passed because the authorities were dissatisfied with the reply of the Petitioner.
It was further pointed out by the Respondent – Authorities that they rejected the claim of the Petitioner on grounds that the details mentioned in the invoices were not matching with the verifying sheets available with the mobile squad. It was also reflected that there had been a violation of Rule 138 by the Petitioner while transporting the goods.
The Petitioner – Company was not able to point out any error in the findings of the Respondent – Authorities.
The Judge therefore, could not find any merit in this petition and dismissed the same by upholding the order of the Respondent – Authorities.