TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1075X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner ought to have paid the tax and penalty either through cash or through Demand Draft - Held that:- Evidently it is only a service provider, having no role to pay in the apportionment. Further, the Government both at the Centre and in the State, have ushered in the GST Tax regime to ensure that everything is made online with minimum manual interventions. Yet strangely, the authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding the petitioner to pay IGST @ 18% and IGST @ 18%, both amounting to ₹ 5,28,834/-. 2. The record reveals that the petitioner paid the amount through the portal, and obtained the Ext.P3 payment receipt. But the Assistant State Tax Officer refused to release the goods, for he insists that the petitioner ought to have paid the tax and penalty either through cash or through Demand Draft. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to the Ext.P4 judgment, which is said to have attained finality. I reckon under identical circumstances, this Court, in the Ext.P4 judgment, that is Fashion Marble and Granite Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer and Others W.P.(C)No.21988/2018, has held as follows: 14. Under these circumstances, the Court declares that the 1st respondent's insistence that the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l interventions. Yet strangely, the authorities still insist that the payment should be by physical means: either in cash or through Demand Draft. That insistence seems to be archaic and out of tune with the very spirit of the GST regime. In apportionment, there may be delays and difficulties, but the tax payer cannot be made to suffer, on that count. 6. Under these circumstances, applying the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
