|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 33 Records
-
2018 (3) TMI 2035 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seizure of goods from the godown in pursuance of a notice under Section 129 (1) of the U.P.GST Act - petitioner prays for is granted one month's to file counter affidavit - HELD THAT:- List this matter on 13.04.2018.
In the meantime, subject to deposit of security other than cash or bank guarantee or in the alternative indemnity bond, equal to the value of tax and penalty, to the satisfaction of seizing authority, the goods of the petitioner may be released forthwith.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1914 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Attachment of Bank Accounts of petitioner - period for issuance of notice under sub-section(1) of section 74 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Notice returnable on 12.4.2018.
By way of ad interim relief, the above attachment is suspended of both the bank accounts on the condition that :
1) The balance as on today in both the bank accounts shall be maintained.
2) The petitioners shall maintain a minimum stock balance of ₹ 50 lacs
-
2018 (3) TMI 1887 - SC ORDER
Transfer petition - HELD THAT:- Learned Additional Solicitor General and the respondent-in-person are fairly agreed that the transfer petitions be allowed and other writ petitions pending, to be transferred to this Court.
After transfer of the above-mentioned cases, the Registry is directed to register them as transferred cases - transfer petition allowed.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1691 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Online filing of returns in the form of GSTR-1 or if GSTR-1 by means of GSTR-3B - Held that:- A communication from the GST Help Desk has been brought on record, by which the petitioner was informed that in the event the temporary authorized signatory is dead or is not traceable, the appropriate remedy would be to approach the Revisional Jurisdictional Tax Officer to set up a new authorized signatory in the GST portal - From the said communication, it appears that the jurisdictional tax officer, who in the present case is said to be the Superintendent of Taxes is the appropriate authority to set up a new authorized signatory.
List this matter again on 06.04.2018.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1453 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Release of detained goods - Rule 140(1) of the Kerala GST Rules, 2017 - Held that: - the writ petition is disposed of directing the competent authority to complete the adjudication provided for under Section 129 of the statutes - 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 them forthwith.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1452 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - Section 129 of the CGST as also the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act - Held that: - it is for the petitioner to raise those grounds before the detaining authority itself at the first instance. In the said view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to complete the adjudication provided for under Section 129 of the statutes - petition disposed off.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1451 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of GST - Petrol and Diesel - case of petitioner is that the petroleum and diesel should be brought forthwith within the ambit of Goods and Service Tax, so that the selling price would drastically reduce and as a consequence, the prices of the Goods and essential commodities would come down, which would ultimately benefit to the common people, especially poor and down trodden.
Whether this Court in exercise of its Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue any positive direction to the Goods and Central Services Tax council to bring petrol and diesel prices within the ambit of Goods and Service Tax?
Held that: - In the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot issue any direction for the reason that it is for the Goods and Service Tax council to take a call in that aspect and Section 9(2) of the 'Act' also deals with the Central Tax on the supply of petroleum crude, high speed diesel, motor spirit (commonly known as petrol), natural gas and aviation turbine fuel - The Goods and Service Tax council is having representation of the State Governments also and therefore, their views have also to be elicited, before the Goods and Service Tax council take a call as to bring the petrol and diesel prices within the ambit of Goods and Service Tax.
It is a well-settled position of law that it is not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken and the extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case.
It is for the Central Government to act on the recommendations of the Goods and Service Tax council as to bring the petroleum and diesel prices within the ambit of the Goods and Service Tax, this Court is not in a position to issue any positive direction to the respondents to consider the prayer sought for by the petitioner.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1450 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - it was alleged that there was no nexus between the documents accompanied and actual goods under transport - Held that: - the Intelligence Inspector shall made a fresh assessment recomputing the value of the goods and shall compute the CGST and SGST payable together with penalty. On payment of 50% of such demand along with execution of a simple bond for the balance amounts, the goods shall be released - petition disposed off.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1318 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Revival of Rule 138 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - whether Rule 138 of the UPGST Rules, 2017 as it stood originally before the 4th amendment would stand revived with the rescinding of the notifications dated 30/31.01.2018 enforcing the amended Rule 138 of the Rules w.e.f. 01.02.2018 with regard to the E-Way Bill? - Held that: - respondents may file counter affidavit within a month - any order which is passed pursuant to the SCN will be subject to decision of this writ petition and at the same time the petitioner would also at liberty to challenge it in the appropriate forum.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1268 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Filing of GST Tran-1 and other returns - Returns filed by the electronic mode are not generated on the website of the Department, and thus were not accepted - reliance was placed in the case of Padmavati Enterprise, Abicor and Binzel Technoweld Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Union of India & Another [2018 (3) TMI 539 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - returns to be accepted provisionally - issue notice.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1265 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Credit under new GST regime - proviso to sub-section (1) of section 140 of the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax - restriction of credit of VAT already taken - Held that: - the provision deprives a dealer to his vasted right and thus, the statute acts retrospectively and also imposed an unreasonable restriction - Notice returnable on 19.04.2018.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1152 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Prayer for issuance of Writ of Manamus to declare Condition (iv) contained in Section 140 (3) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Input tax credit of eligible duties - Held that: - inadvertently certain typographical errors have occurred in the writ petition - prayer as made that he may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh one on the same cause of action by furnishing correct and better particulars, is allowed - petition dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1151 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Prayer for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to declare Condition (iv) contained in Section 140 (3) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Input tax credit of eligible duties - Held that: - inadvertently certain typographical errors have occurred in the writ petition - prayer as made that he may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh one on the same cause of action by furnishing correct and better particulars, is allowed - petition dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1075 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Corrigendum to bring the original notification dated 28th June, 2017 in confirmity with the recommendations of the GST Council - a corrigendum on the same lines will be issued by the GNCTD as well list on 15th November 2017.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1074 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of consignment with vehicle - requirement of security deposit for release of goods and vehicle - Held that: - it is established that the documents used by the petitioner would not suffice to cover the transportation of the goods - the detention cannot be said to be un-justified - the respondent is directed to release the goods and the vehicle covered by Ext.P3 detention notice, to the petitioner, on his furnishing a bank guarantee to cover the security deposit amount demanded in the Ext.P3 notice, before the respondent - petition disposed off.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1019 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of the goods of the petitioner, along with the vehicle - Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act - Held that: - the first respondent directed to complete the adjudication provided for under Section 129, within a week from the date of production of a copy of this judgment - petition disposed off.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1018 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - sub-section (3) of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act - Held that: - In terms of the interim order passed by this Court on 22.02.2018, this Court directed release of the goods detained against execution of a bond - this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to complete the adjudication provided for under Section 129 of the Act, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1017 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Consideration of representations submitted by the petitioner - Levy of GST - Works Contract, on which VAT was imposed previously - the petitioner/association made representations on 05.07.2017 10.07.2017, 11.07.2017 and 11.09.2017 to the respondents stating that the contract works for which the agreements were executed prior to 01.07.2017 GST cannot be imposed and 2% VAT alone is applicable.
Held that: - since the petitioner's representations are pending, it is appropriate for the respondent to respond to the same by giving them a reply. The appropriate person who would be in a position to give reply is that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes shall give a reply. Because all other authorities are the department of Highways and National Highways etc., who would not be in a position to specifically address the issue pointed out by the petitioner.
There will be a direction to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to consider the representation given by the petitioner/ association and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1016 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Consideration of representations submitted by the petitioner - Levy of GST - Works Contract, on which VAT was imposed previously - the petitioner/association made representations on 05.07.2017 10.07.2017, 11.07.2017 and 11.09.2017 to the respondents stating that the contract works for which the agreements were executed prior to 01.07.2017 GST cannot be imposed and 2% VAT alone is applicable.
Held that: - since the petitioner's representations are pending, it is appropriate for the respondent to respond to the same by giving them a reply. The appropriate person who would be in a position to give reply is that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes shall give a reply. Because all other authorities are the department of Highways and National Highways etc., who would not be in a position to specifically address the issue pointed out by the petitioner.
There will be a direction to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to consider the representation given by the petitioner/ association and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2018 (3) TMI 972 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Release of the goods detained - Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act - Held that: - an identical matter has been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Commercial Tax Officer And The Intelligence Inspector Versus Madhu. M.B. [2017 (9) TMI 1044 - KERALA HIGH COURT], directing expeditious completion of the adjudication of the matter and permitting release of the goods detained pending adjudication, in terms of Rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
The writ petition is disposed of directing the competent authority to complete the adjudication provided for under Section 129 of the statutes referred to above, within a week from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.
|
