HC held that The Notification impugned dated 1.10.2013 issued by the Government of Karnataka insofar it relates to the amendment made to the Notification dated 30.3.2002 for insertion of sub-item [ii] in Serial No.[5], specifying unmanufactured tobacco in ‘sealed container’ for levy of Entry Tax at 5% with effect from 02.10.2013 cannot be held to be unjustifiable and is accordingly upheld.
He has also made a suggestion that instead of constituting a separate tribunal to deal with GST matters, the CESTAT could be empowered to deal with the same since several cases involve issues relating to customs duties and GST as well.
P.X. Xavier Vs. K. Joseph (Kerala High Court) Admittedly, the Liquidator had taken a decision. The decision taken by the liquidator is appealable under Section 42 of the Code. The petitioners, in order to file appeal under Section 42 of the Code, filed an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. It has […]
Insha Trading Company Vs. State Of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The reasons for issuance of the notice for confiscation under section 130 of the CGST Act in Form GST MOV-10 are that upon preliminary verification of the dealer online, 42 e-way bills have been generated in December 2018, wherein, IGST has been shown to Rs. […]
M/s Livguard Energy Technologies (P) Ltd Vs State of Uttarakhand (Uttarakhand High Court) Uttarakhand High Court has declined to accede to petitioner’s request for release of vehicle and goods seized on merely furnishing an indemnity bond. It observed that it would be inappropriate to issue a direction contrary to provisions of Section 129 of the […]
Hence, we request Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General to examine the feasibility of vesting the powers under GST regime to the already functional VAT/Sales Tax Tribunals/CESTAT as a temporary measure.
The Hon’ble HC, Gujarat in the matter of M/s Choksi Texlen Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [Special Civil Application No. 8096 of 2019 dated October 18, 2019] instructs Revenue authorities to withdraw the charge and attachment made on the Petitioner’s property to recover alleged dues of the erstwhile owner of the property under the […]
No doubt, the appeal filed by the petitioner was time barred but in the facts of the case, in our considered view, the appeal of the petitioner ought to be decided on merits rather dismissing the same on the ground of delay.
When the conveyance in question was carrying the goods which were duly accompanied by documents and no discrepancy was found in connection therewith, there was no reason for the third respondent to confiscate the same. The impugned order of confiscation passed by the third respondent under section 130 of the CGST Act, therefore, cannot be sustained.
To treat any person as a Principal Officer, such person should be connected with the management or administration of the local authority/company or association or body. Such connection with the management or administration is the basis for treating any person as a Principal Officer.
