GST Library
Subscription
GST News
GST Videos
GST Calendar
GST Case Laws
GST Notifications
GST Act / Rules
GST Rates
GST Set-off Calculator
GST Forms
Full Site Search
Classification by CTA
E-way Bill
Finance Bill

GST e-Books
GST Act & Rules
GST Rates Compendium
HSN Guide 2022

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd.
TM
Free GST updates via...
twitter
8130462634

GST Case Laws

1
Court
High Court
State
Search by Related Tags
  OR

  OR

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

   579 Results

These four writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner seeking identical reliefs based upon similar causes of action, for different months of the same assessment year. He is aggrieved by the rejection of his appeals on the ground of limitation. 2. The issue involved in the appeals related to the claim for refund of unutilized input tax credit for the months of July, August, September and October, all of the year 2017. The assessing authority partly rejected the claim for refund by Ext...

STATE TAX OFFICER AND OTHER vs. Y. BALAKRISHNAN


(Kerala High Court | Nov 29, 2021)

An interim order is the cause of this review petition. By the interim order, this Court directed release of goods that were the subject matter of proceedings for confiscation under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for brevity ‘the Act’). A review petition against the interim order is preferred by the State Tax Officer, leading to seminal questions on the scope and ambit of the powers of release of goods while the confiscation proceedings are going on. 2. The prima...
Petitioners' request for transfer of files of enquiry to a place of petitioners' choice and for grant of copy of statements recorded by respondents in the process of investigation into non-collection of tax for outward supply of rice, were not considered by the Proper Officer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act'). 2. These four writ petitions are filed by respective tax payers against whom summons have been issued relating to an investiga...

SALIM K.M vs. THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS


(Kerala High Court | Nov 19, 2021)

Petitioner challenges two notices issued under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, the Act] in Form GST MOV-10 dated 28.10.2021. The impugned notices had called upon the petitioner to appear before the 3 rd respondent and furnish an explanation on the proposal for confiscation of the goods, transported and on the value of goods, tax and penalty estimated by the Proper Officer. Petitioner submitted Ext.P8 reply on 29.10.2021 and this writ petition was filed ...

NELLISSERY & CO. vs. STATE TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS


(Kerala High Court | Nov 3, 2021)

Various reliefs are claimed by the petitioner. It includes a direction to serve a copy of an Order issued under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (for short, 'the Act') and not to invoke the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner. 2. Petitioner claims to be engaged in the manufacture of gold ornaments as job work for others. On 29.08.2019, while a staff of the petitioner was travelling on a train, for supplying the ornaments to its principals after the j...

A.S. JEWELLERS vs. STATE TAX OFFICER PALLAKAD


(Kerala High Court | Nov 3, 2021)

Various reliefs are claimed by the petitioner. It includes a direction to serve a copy of an Order issued under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (for short, 'the Act') and not to invoke the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner. 2. Petitioner claims to be engaged in the manufacture of gold ornaments as job work for others. On 29.08.2019, while a staff of the petitioner was travelling on a train, for supplying the ornaments to its principals after the j...
Petitioner is a dealer in gold jewellery. He challenges the proceedings initiated under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act'). 2. On 04.03.2021, petitioner allegedly carried 1033.630 gms of gold ornaments to Mangalore by train. When he reached near the Palakkad Junction Railway Station, a search was conducted by the Railway Police Force and gold ornaments were detected and seized from the petitioner. Intimation was given to the GST depar...
Petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 order issued by the 3rd respondent. By virtue of Ext.P9, petitioner's claim for refund of taxes paid under Central Goods and Services Tax as well as State Goods and Services Tax have been refused on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the payment of tax by the petitioner. 2. As per the order of demand of tax and penalty issued under section 129(3) of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, petitioner remitted an amount of ₹ 12,26,064/- with t...
Petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order of assessment issued by the first respondent. 2. Petitioner is registered under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'CGST' Act) and is engaged in the purchase and sale of gold ornaments. Pursuant to an inspection of the business place of the petitioner on 03.09.2019, proceedings were initiated under Section 74 (1) of the CGST Act, proposing to impose penalty. Ext.P8 reply was filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice iss...
Petitioner primarily challenges Ext.P6 order of assessment. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that of violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as, he had not been granted an opportunity of filing an objection and personal hearing. A perusal of Ext.P8 shows that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 74 (1) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 which is stated to have been served on the petitioner on 12.08.2021. However, thereafter, the explanation a...