The other ground of seizure on which penalty has been imposed is that the goods, started their journey one week after the date of the invoice. Prima facie that cannot be the ground to seize the goods or to impose penalty.
Petitioner seeks release of the goods detained by the second respondent under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act as also the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act.
The goods of the petitioner have been seized on 16.03.2018 for want of E-Way Bill. On the respective submissions of the parties the issue which crops up in this petition is whether Rule 138 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as it stood originally before the 4th amendment would stand revived with the rescinding of the notifications dated 30/31.01.2018 enforcing the amended Rule 138 of the Rules w.e.f. 01.02.2018 with regard to the E-Way Bill.
The question raised in the present petition concerns Rule 96A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and Circular No. 4/4/2017- GST issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (GST Policy Wing), in terms of which any person exporting goods or services without payment of integrated tax is required to furnish a bond or a letter of undertaking (‘LUT’) in Form GST RFD-11.
Petitioner here will continue to pay the taxes as and when they fall due after availing and utilizing the credit for the cess already paid. This will, however, be subject to the final orders passed by this Court.
Punjab & Haryana HC in the case of Carpo Power Limited vs. State of Haryana in CWP No. 29437 of 2017 has held that Form C is available to assesse even after implementation of GST.
M/s Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Constitutional validity and vires of Second proviso to Section 140(1) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Constitutional validity and vires of Rule 117 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and Form GST Tran-1 issued in relation thereto […]
These appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common Judgment as the issue which arises in these appeals is more or less same. So far as CEXA No.89 of 2008 is concerned, it takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 22nd August 2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (for short the Appellate Tribunal)
Remark Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The petitioners are registered dealers under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and are engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of wheat flour, meslin flour, cereal flours etc. The GST authorities had conducted a search at the business premises of […]
HC directs to make appropriate changes in the portal so as to enable the petitioner to comply with the statutory requirements for the period prior to 09.03.2018 also, within ten days
