Home      Free WhatsApp Updates      Services      Subscription Plans
🔒 Login    
Subscription Plans   
Taxreply tweets
GST News
About GST Library
E-Books
Subscription Plans
Offers New
GST Case Laws / Advance Rulings ✓
GST Notifications / Circulars
GST Act / Rules
GST Act / Rules (Amendments)
GST Rates
Classification (Chapter Wise)
Classification (Search Tool)
GST Set-off Calculator
Full Site Search
National Anti-Profiteering Authority
GST Forms   
E-way Bill
Finance Bill
GST Amendment Statistics
GST Case Laws
3,479 cases mapped to 12,742 taggings
Citation
Court
State
Search by Related Tags
  OR

  OR

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

   488 Results

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the detention of goods that were being transported at his instance. From a perusal of Ext.P9 notice, in Form GST-MOV-07, it is seen that the defect pointed out is with regard to the transportation in one segment not being covered by a valid e-way bill. Taking note of the said defect noticed by the respondents, I am of the view that the detention cannot be said to be unjustified. 2. Taking note of the request made by the learned counsel...

Nov 26, 2020  

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by a detention of his goods during the course of transportation. It is seen from Ext.P8 order in FORM GST MOV-9, that the reason for detention was that the validity period of the e-way bill that accompanied the transportation of goods had already expired. In that sense, I do not see the detention as unjustified as the transportation was not accompanied by a valid transport document at the time of detention. The learned counsel for the petitio...

Nov 25, 2020  

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P7 notice issued in FORM GST MOV-7 detaining a consignment of goods that was being transported from Salem to Ernakulam. The goods in question were detained at Walayar on 10.11.2020 and the reason for detention is seen as a mis-match in the value of the goods transported, as shown in the e-way bill and job work invoice that accompanied the transportation of the goods. 2. The facts in the writ petition would reveal that a consignment...

Nov 25, 2020  

The appeal impugns the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which refused to interfere with Exhibit P4(a) & (b) order of detention and notice issued to the appellant under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ['CGST Act' for brevity]. The learned Single Judge directed release of the goods and vehicle on furnishing Bank Guarantee for the amount demanded in the impugned notice. 2. The appellant is a registered dealer in tiles. A consignment of ceramic ...

Nov 20, 2020  

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 series of notices issued to him under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. From the said notices it is apparent that the defect noticed by the respondent was that the validity of the e-way bill that accompanied the transportation of the goods had expired by the time of detention. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the table under Rule 138(10) of the CGST Rules to contend that, inasmuch as the cargo carri...

Nov 13, 2020  

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P14 series of orders passed against him under the GST Act. In the Writ Petition, among the many grounds on which Ext.P14 series of orders are challenged, the primary contention is that before passing Ext.P14 series of orders, the petitioner was not heard. Taking note of the said submission and finding that in the absence of a hearing extended to the petitioner the impugned orders would be vitiated by a non-compliance with the rules of ...

Nov 12, 2020  

This Review Petition has been posted before this court today at my instance to remedy a wrong that was occasioned to the petitioner through a dismissal of his writ petition, and later, his Review Petition. W.P.(C).No.15297/2020 was preferred by the writ petitioner impugning demand-cum-recovery notices that were issued to him under the GST Act, pursuant to a best judgment assessment that was completed in terms of Section 62 of the GST Act. 2. In the writ petition, it was the case of the pe...

Nov 12, 2020  

The petitioner, who is an assessee to GST on the rolls of the 1st respondent, preferred an application to cancel his registration under the GST regime as he decided to transfer the business as a whole to a 3rd party. Unfortunately for the petitioner, in the application that he had preferred for cancelling the registration, he had inadvertently shown the reason for cancellation as 'discontinuance of business/ closure of business' whereas, in fact the reason ought to have been, "tr...

Nov 10, 2020  

As both these writ petitions involve a common issue and pertain to the same transaction, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners are the owner of the goods consigned from Kanyakumari in Tamil Nadu to Kalyan in Maharashtra, as well as the owner of the vehicle in which the said goods were being transported. The goods and the vehicle, during the course of transit through the State of Kerala, were detained by the respondents at Vat...

Nov 6, 2020  

The petitioners are dealers, inter alia, in brass and copper scraps, having their business concern in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu and Jamnagar, Gujarat, respectively. A consignment of scrap that was being transported from Coimbatore to Gujarat from the 1st petitioner, as consigner, to the 2nd petitioner, as consignee, was detained by the respondents at Kodumuda in Palakkad. The detention notice issued to the petitioners indicates that the reason for detention was that the documents that accompanie...

Nov 6, 2020