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 […]
Petitioner highlighted the difficulties faced by them in filing returns before the last date because of the recent flood ravage in Kerala State. So they wanted the last date for the filing of returns extended to 31.12.2018. The Department has, however, extended the period till 15.10.2018. Reckoning that period to be inadequate, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
In the case of Association Of Tax Practitioners & Hindu Economic Forum Vs. UOI filed with Kerala High Court it was argued that once an assessee is allowed to submit returns upto 15.10.2018, the department cannot demand interest under section 234A for the extended period. Hon’ble high court posted these writ petitions for further consideration on 11.10.2018.
CIT Vs Harbour View (Kerala High Court) We find that the Tribunal went wrong in holding that the possession was not handed over in pursuance of the agreement for sale as contemplated under section 53A of the TP Act. Once the sale agreement comes under the provisions of section 53A of the TP Act, handing […]
Safa Mill Stores Vs Assistant State Tax Officer, Karukutty (Kerala High Court) 1. The petitioner, a partnership firm, transported certain goods ostensibly from Bombay to Perumbavoor. But when the petitioner tried to unload the goods at Malamury, Perumbavoor, the authorities checked the documents carried along with the goods and found that they did not correctly reflect […]
