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 […]
The application filed by the applicant is rejected as not admissible in terms of first Proviso to Section 98(2) of the GST Act 2017, since the issue was already pending before another authority when the application was made before AAR.
In re Ordnance Factory (GST AAAR Maharashtra) Question: 1) Being a part of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, whether our organization Ordnance Factory Bhandara is liable to pay GST on the following supply of services: – a) Liquidated damages deducted from the payments to be made to suppliers in case of delayed delivery […]
In re EI-Chico Clutch Pvt. Ltd. (AAR GST Haryana) 1. Whether parts namely Starter Ring Gear Flywheel Assembly, Starter Ring Gear and Universal joint Cross (U.J. Cross) supplied for use in motor vehicle is classifiable under HSN 8708 or 8483 and What is the applicable rate of GST i.e. 28% or 18% on parts namely […]
Since the question raised in the application is pending with SGST Authorities under the provisions of this Act, therefore as per proviso to section 98(2) of the Act the said application filed by the applicant is hereby not admitted.
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.
The product ‘K Juice Grape’ falls under the category of “Other” under CTH 2202 10 90. The applicable rate of tax is 14% CGST vide SI.No. 12 of Schedule IV under Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and 14% under SGST at 14% vide SI.No. 12 of Schedule IV under Notification No.II(2)/CTR/532(d-4)/2017 vide G.O. (Ms) No. 62 dated 29.06.2017 as amended.
