GST Library
Taxreply tweets
About GST Library
GST News
GST Calender New
Subscription Plans
GST Case Laws
GST Notifications
GST Act / Rules
GST Rates
GST Set-off Calculator
GST Forms
Full Site Search
Classification (Chapters)
Classification (Search)
E-way Bill
Finance Bill
TaxReply India Pvt Ltd.

GST Case Laws

Search by Related Tags


Date (From)
Date (To)
Name of Party
Free-Text Search
Sort By
Text Search option

   515 Results

Dated this the 16th day of February 2021 Heard both sides. The petitioner, who has suffered an order of confirmation of penalty at the hands of the respondent-State Tax Officer, is challenging the action of the said authority in directing the 2nd respondent-Bank to invoke bank guarantee and to forward the demand draft of the value of the said bank guarantee to the 1st respondent. 02. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out the provisions of Section 107 of the Goods and ...

Feb 16, 2021  

Dated this the 2nd day of February 2021 Heard both sides. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the appellate order (Ext.P7) passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act ('the CGST Act' for brevity), thereby rejecting the appeals filed by the petitioner being barred by limitation, apart from non-deposit of 1% of the court fees as per the KLBF . 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petiti...

Feb 2, 2021  

The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Exts.P3 to P3(c) notices issued under Section 129 of the Goods and Services Tax (“GST Act” for short). The petitioner says that even though the proceedings impelled through Exts.P3 to P3(c) are illegal, unlawful and unjustified, the 1st respondent is refusing to release the consignment along with the vehicle and therefore, that they have been constrained to approach this Court through this writ petition. They, however, concede tha...

Jan 27, 2021  

Heard both sides. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is a partnership firm doing business in the name and style of UP & UP elevators at Cherthala in Alapuzha. He argued that on 11.01.2021, the petitioner purchased 4 numbers of Control Panels from M/s. Propower Systems Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore after remitting the requisite IGST also. Those goods were then transported from Bangalore to Cochin through M/s. Kallada Logistics. In submission of the learned coun...

Jan 19, 2021  

As these writ petitions raise a common challenge to the legality of orders of detention passed by the respondents under the GST Act, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment. 2. I have heard Sri.Shrikumar, the learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Sri.Manoj Chandran for the petitioner in W.P(C) No.22608 of 2020, Sri.A.Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C).No.22072 of 2020, Sri.Karthik S. Nair, the learned counsel for the petiti...

Jan 12, 2021  

Heard both sides. Perused the impugned order. The impugned order at Ext.P3 reflects that the petitioner was absent despite service of notice of hearing. The petitioner has demonstrated that the petitioner was noticed on wrong address. My attention is also drawn to the correct address of the petitioner as reflected in the Registration Certificate issued by the respondent-department. Noticing the petitioner on the wrong address is against principles of natural justice. The order inviting ad...

Jan 12, 2021  

Appellant’s attempt to obtain a direction from this Court, to have access to the GST common portal to enable him to upload the returns for the period from the date of implementation of the GST Act, and to get acceptance of the revised return from 2017 to enable filing of regular returns ended up in rejection through the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. He assails the said judgment, contending that, access to the electronic portal was not possible due to no fault of his, bu...

Jan 11, 2021  

Petitioner challenges Exts.P5, P6 and P8. Ext.P8 is an order issued by the respondent under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (For short, the Act). Petitioner contends that his vehicle was detained under Section 129(1) on the ground that there was a violation of Rule 138 of the GST Rules, since the E-Way bill issue had expired few hours before the vehicle was detained. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. A Kumar, further contends, that the appellat...

Jan 5, 2021  

The petitioner says that they are the manufactures of "Roto Fabric Cloth Bags" for the consumption of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, but that when they tried to transport it on the strength of Ext.P1 - Tax Invoice and Ext.P2 - E-way bills, it has been detained by the respondent, alleging that the product is actually cotton bags and therefore, within the sweep of Section 31 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for...

Jan 5, 2021  

The petitioner is stated to be a proprietary concern engaged in the supply of hill produce including cardamom; and that it has been an assessee to General Sales Tax, on the rolls of the 1st respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner – Sri.P.Deepak, submits that the 2nd respondent is the holder of a cardamom E-Auctioneer License, namely Ext.P1, issued by the License Board as per the Cardamom (Licensing and Marketing) Rules, 1987 and that on 01.01.2021; and that a consignme...

Jan 5, 2021