t is trite that ignorance of the law is not an excuse and lack of understanding would also be akin to ignorance; which cannot validly be taken up. The delay is also huge coming to 1964 days.
The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 01.06.2016 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to accept the Return Of Income filed by the petitioner Company for the assessment year 2014-15 under Section 139(1) of the Act.
PIL filed before Rajasthan High court challenging GST Act provision of constitution of Authority for Advance Ruling and Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling admitted
If the petitioner complies with Rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the goods detained shall be released to them forthwith.
A taxable person transports the goods procured by them for own use to the site where the goods are to be consumed.
The specific case of the petitioner is that the consignment was intended to be supplied to three parties for quality appraisal on job work basis. Such transactions are not prohibited. Such goods in terms of the provisions contained in the CGST and SGST Act are to be transported on delivery chalans. The question whether the person to whom such goods are supplied has registration is irrelevant in the context of the statutes.
Outward transport service used by the manufactures for transportation of finished goods from the place of removal up to the premises of the purchaser is covered within the definition of input service provided in rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
In terms of Article 279A of the Constitution of India, it cannot be said that the recommendations made by the Goods and Services Tax Council are in violation of the Code of Conduct.
Petitioner made representations stating that the contract works for which the agreements were executed prior to 01.07.2017 GST cannot be imposed and 2% VAT alone is applicable.
Petitioner has challenged second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 140 of the Gujarat goods and service tax act, 2017 under which certain restrictions have been imposed on a dealer for taking tax credit under then the VAT act. counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provision deprives a dealer to his vested right and thus, the statute acts retrospectively and also imposes an unreasonable restriction.
