Saji S. Vs. Commissioner, State GST Department (Kerala High Court at Ernakulam) The petitioner, who is the consignee and transporter, insists that the consignor paid the tax and penalty under that only based on the ASTO’s directions. But the fact remains that the remittance must have been under the head ‘IGST’. So the authorities have […]
Proper officer was directed to duly complete the pending adjudication provided under section 129 of Kerala GST Act, 2017 and was also directed that if assessee had complied with rule 140(1) of the Kerala GST Rules, 2017, the goods detained shall be released to it.
It is alleged by the petitioner that though he has attempted to upload FORM GST TRAN-1 within the time, he was not able to do so on account of some system error. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions so as to enable him to take credit of the input tax available to him at the time of migration.
It is hard to notice the thickness, seal, embossment or any other identification marks used to check the authenticity of identity card if the same is laminated to make it glossy and water proof. The lamination destroys the legality of an identity card for all intents and purposes since it becomes difficult to compare the signature therein with that in the Register.
Kerala High Court has held that penalty cannot be imposed for not producing the goods (before the officer) after release on bond, when there is a security equivalent to value of goods which could be invoked. It noted that there was no question of tax and penalty being not paid as bank guarantee could be invoked at any time.
It is also directed that if the petitioner complies with Rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the goods detained shall be released to him forthwith.
Sabitha Riyaz Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court) The petitioner, a trader, transported natural rubber. After generating e-way bill, she sent a consignment to Uttarakhand, with all the relevant records. But it was seized by the State Tax Officer, Uttarakhand, the additional 11th respondent. The ground for detention is that in the e-way bill the […]
Armour Steel Buildings India (P) Ltd. Vs Asstt. State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) The petitioner, an assessee under the GST Act in Tamil Nadu, sent goods across to the State. The Assistant State Tax Officer intercepted the goods and detained them. After the initial procedural formalities the petitioner suffered an order under section 129 […]
The HC held that if the records he seizes truly reflect the transaction and the assessee’s explanation accords with his past conduct, for example, the returns he has filed earlier, the detention is not the answer.
Plywood and Allied Products Dealers Association of India Vs. UOI & Ors (Kerala High Court) The Petitioner is an association of plywood and allied product dealers and the 2nd petitioner is a member of that association, they have filing Public Interest Litgation praying for a general Order of extension of the “due dates” for filing the Tax Audit Report(TAR) and […]
