Reasons of goods interception to send by SMS within 30 minutes-UP GST issues direction for interception, detention seizure of transport vehicle
Uttar Pradesh GST (Commercial Tax) Department has issued a detailed circular/advisory to its officers regarding interception, detention or seizure of transport vehicle during the checking of goods transported.
In view of the practical problems faced and request by trade organisations, advocates and field officer on this regard, the UP GST Department has issued the directions for uniformity in implementation of the said circular.
In interception of transport vehicle, the proper officer shall within 30 minutes send reasons of interception through SMS to mobile no. 7839669836 from his/her CUG Mobile No.
After sending the SMS the officer shall receive a six digit ‘interception number which shall be recorded in FORM GST MOV-02 and made available to the person in charge of the transport vehicle.
Within 24 hours of receiving the interception number, a registration ni shall be generated at the departmental website comtax.up.nic.in
It has been provided that vehicle shall not be detained for dispute in tax rate or valuation if the required documents are available in which case action shall be taken by the Jt. Commissioner
A transport vehicle which has been intercepted and checked at any other State/UT or within the State of UP by an officer, it shall not be subjected to investigation again unless specific information is received for tax evasion.
The circular further details the direction regarding deposit of tax and penalty related to IGST and its recording and accounting and various other aspects.
There is no statutory requirement of pre-deposit for stay of demand under Income Tax Act - High Court stayed demand …
Engagement of Company Secretaries (CS) as Young Professionals in the Office of Regional Director (WR), Registrar of Companies, Mumbai and…
Applicability of provisions of Section 115BBE read with Section 69, 69A and 69C in a case arising before Settlement Commission…
Addition u/s 68 for jewellery purportedly received on death of grandparent under Will upheld. In a recent judgment, ITAT upheld…
Supreme Court lays down tests to determine whether a debt is a financial debt or an operational debt under IBC…
Merely because directors of two companies were common not mean that deposits received was bogus and companies were shell companies…