Home Case Index All Cases GST 2018 2018 2018 (3) GST - 2018 (3) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

GST - Case Laws

Showing 21 to 33 of 33 Records

• 2018 (3) TMI 971 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Classification of imported goods - GSL ARTEMIA BRINE SHRIMP EGGS - petitioner sought to avail concessional duty (preferential rate of 0% IGST as against 5% IGST) by relying upon Notification No.002/2017-Cus dated 28.06.2017 in Sl.No.33 - respondent opined that the item imported by the petitioner should be classified under IGST Notification No.001/2017 Sl.No.I-21 - Held that: - Prima facie this Court is of the view that the respondent could not invoke Section 111(m) of the Customs Act as there appears to be no allegation that the goods do not correspond in respect of the value or in any other particular with the entry made under the Act. In the impugned order, the respondent has accepted that there is no dispute in the classification of the goods.

  The petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 970 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Detention of goods - inter-state transport - detention was for the reason that the notice issued is that of the Value Added Tax period and also of undervaluation - Held that: - with respect to an inter-State transport, there are no documents prescribed by the Central Government - In the circumstance of the Central Government having still not prescribed any document, prima facie there can be no detention of goods on that count. However, the adjudication proceedings would be continued and in the meanwhile the goods shall be released to the petitioner on execution of simple bond without sureties - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 969 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Detention of goods (M.S scrap) with vehicle - non-production of proper documents - insistence of the respondent that the petitioner must pay the security deposit demanded in the detention notice as a condition for release of the goods and vehicle - Held that: - The learned counsel for the petitioner faced with a situation where detention is inevitable till such time as the adjudication is completed undertakes to furnish a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in Ext.P3 notice - the respondent directed to release the goods and the vehicle covered by the detention notice, to the petitioner, on the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in Ext.P3 notice, before the respondent - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 968 - 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 901 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Release of detained goods - Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act - 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 the petitioner forthwith - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 900 - 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, 29.08.2017 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 739 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Confiscation of seized vehicle along with certain quantities of beedies - Held that: - as the seized vehicle is not liable for confiscation in default of payment of tax that may be determined/already determined, no purpose will be served by keeping the said vehicle under continued detention - petition allowed.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 679 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Difficulties in filing of GST Tran-1 - transitional credit - Writ of mandamus to extend the time period for filing of GST Tran-1 - application of petitioner was not entertained on the last date i.e. 27.12.2017 and he has filed his complete application for the necessary transactional credit - Held that: - the respondents are directed to reopen the portal within two weeks from today. In the event they do not do so, they will entertain the application of the petitioner manually and pass orders on it after due verification of the credits as claimed by the petitioner - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 678 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Seizure order passed by Proper Officer u/s 129 of UPGST Act, 2017 - Held that: - on perusal of Section 129, it is found that the petitioner can get its goods released by resorting to any of the three modes mentioned in Sub-section 1(a) to (c) thereof, meaning thereby, it can also furnish a security equivalent to the amount payable under Clause (a) or Clause (b) in such form and manner as may be prescribed including Sub-section 6 of Section 67 by virtue of Section 2 of Section 129 - it would be appropriate for the petitioners herein to approach the proper officer under the said provisions, who shall look into the matter and take such decision as is appropriate and accordance with law - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 539 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Returns filed by the electronic mode are not generated on the website of the Department, and thus were not accepted - Held that: - even if the returns are forwarded belatedly, they cannot be refused for those forwarding these returns after the prescribed period are aware that they would be visited with tax liability and the component of interest and penalty may be also added - This Court should not be flooded with litigations of this nature - there are no reasons why the returns are not being accepted or not loaded on the site.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 538 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Rebate - recovery of amount - recovery of amount in view of enactment of transitional provisions under the CGST - Held that: - It was not an order passed merely because the Court was upset with the Respondents or because of the absence of the advocates, but it is clear from the order that it was to impress upon the Authorities that the proceedings before this Court should not be delayed - On account of the fair stand of the Petitioner and Mr. Sridharan, we direct that the amount paid of ₹ 25,000/be returned to the Respondents - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 480 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of Minutes of the Meeting - case of petitioners is that these are not agreed Minutes, but, they are drawn up by the association and they could be at best treated as a representation of the association - Held that: - We record the statement made by the learned Additional Solicitor General, on instructions, that insofar as the grievances of returns without late fees, the petitioner may file their GSTR-3B returns with the late fees first. If that is paid and proof of such payment is produced, that will also be autocredited/refunded in their cash ledger by the CSTN within a period of one week from the date the payment is made. We accept this statement as undertaking to this Court.

  We expect the competent authority in the Ministry particularly at the State and the Central level to coordinate and resolve the issues which are raised in this petition on or before 24th April, 2018.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 389 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Reimbursement of additional burden due to implementation of GST - scope and extent of the contract with railways - Held that: - no cause of action has been arisen to the petitioner-assessee yet in the matter and the present petition has been filed by the petitioner- assessee prematurely against the Respondents not to take any action against them under the newly enacted GST law enforced from 01.07.2017 - Unless a cause of action arises to the petitioner-assessee by an impugned action notice or order by the Respondents-Department, the academic questions raised by the petitioner-assessee cannot be determined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - petition dismissed being pre-mature.

  ---

12