Relcon Foundations (P) Ltd. Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) A perusal of Ext.P1 order would indicate that the detention of the vehicle carrying the goods was on the ground that the GSTR 3B returns had not been filed from June 2018 and GSTR I had not been filed from March 2019. It […]
As per Section 129 of GST Act, the detention notice has been passed on the ground that the validity period of the e-way bill that accompanied the transportation had already expired at the time of detention.
Tube Investments of India Limited Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) Exemption, when port notified subsequently: Madras High Court has allowed benefit of Notification No. 104/2009-Cus. (status holder incentive scheme) in a case where the imports were made before the addition of the name of the specific port in the said notification. It observed […]
M/S. GCDA Employees Vs COIT (Kerala High Court) It is well settled that pension is not a charity or bounty nor is it a conditional payment solely dependent on the sweet will of the employer. Pension is in the nature of deferred payment earned for rendering long and satisfactory service with the employer. It is […]
Kerala High Court ruling on E-way Bill, goods detention. AMM Aquapure Systems Vs Asstt. STO case details. Read the full judgment.
Assessee could not establish any ‘reasonable cause’ with respect of acceptance of the deposits in cash, exceeding the permissible limit, imposition of the penalty was re-affirmed.
Unitac Energy Solution Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ass. STO (Kerala High Court) Kerala High Court has held that detention claiming the consignee was a return defaulter for the last five months, is not a valid ground to justify detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act 2017. The High Court quashed the detention notice observing that […]
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 […]
M/s Bridge Hygiene Services Private Limited Vs The State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) The statutory prescription of 30 days from the date of receipt of the assessment order passed under sub section (1) of Section 62 has to be strictly construed against an assessee and in favour of the revenue, since this is a […]
Statutory prescription of 30 days from the date of receipt of the assessment order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 62 has to be strictly construed against an assessee and in favour of the revenue, since this is a provision in a taxing statute that enables an assessee to get an order passed against him on best judgment basis set aside. The provision must be interpreted in the same manner as an exemption provision in a taxing statute.
