Goods & Services Tax
GST Case Laws

Search GST Case Laws

Keyword

Authority

Court

Section

Appeal No.

Date of Order

Date of Order

Judge

Favouring

Login/Subscribe to get access. Plan starts from Rs. 3500/-  Subscribe Now

Court: High Court of Kerala Date of Order: 2018-04-05

Goods belonging to the petitioner have been detained by the competent authority under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act as also the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, invoking the powers under section 129 of the said statutes. Ext.P5 is the detention order issued in this regard. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 detention order.


Court: High Court of Allahabad Date of Order: 2018-04-03

The petitioner has affected the sale of Iron and Steel weighing 20 M.Ton for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to one M/s Ram Naresh Ramakant, Bindiki, Fatehpur. The purchaser situated at Bindiki, Fatehpur is also a registered dealer to whom the petitioner has raised tax invoice No.60 dated 25.3.2018. The invoice aforesaid indicates that the goods worth of Rs.6,00,000/- are sold on which the petitioner has charged the Central G.S.T. @ 9% to the tune of Rs.54,000/- as also the State G.S.T. @ 9% to the tune of Rs.54,000/- and the grand total therefore has been charged to the tune of Rs.7,08,000/-. The said goods were being transported from Varanasi to Bindiki, Fatehpur and on bypass road Nawabganj at Allahabad respondent no.4 has intercepted the vehicle on 26.3.2018 at 9 a.m. and has detained the vehicle for verification of the goods and documents accompanying the goods.


Court: High Court of Allahabad Date of Order: 2018-04-03

The petitioner is aggrieved by the seizure of his goods vide impugned order dated 25.03.2018 passed under Section 129(1) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.G.S.T.).


Court: High Court of Kerala Date of Order: 2018-03-28

It is seen that an identical matter has been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1802 of 2017, directing expeditious completion of the adjudication of the matter and permitting release of the goods detained pending adjudication, in terms of Rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.


Court: High Court of Kerala Date of Order: 2018-03-26

It is seen that an identical matter has been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1802 of 2017, directing expeditious completion of the adjudication of the matter and permitting release of the goods detained pending adjudication, in terms of Rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.


Court: High Court of Kerala Date of Order: 2018-03-26

Goods belonging to the petitioner have been detained by the first respondent invoking the power under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act as also the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act. Ext.P3 is the detention order and Ext.P2 is the notice issued to the petitioner in this connection. The reason stated in Ext.P2 is that the goods have been transported by the petitioner without records. The case of the petitioner is that the driver of the vehicle in which the goods were carried omitted to hand over the documents when the goods were intercepted and the same were though furnished later, the detaining authority did not accept the same. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this connection.


Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Order: 2018-03-22

On the respective submissions of the parties the issue which crops up in this petition is whether Rule 138 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as it stood originally before the 4th amendment would stand revived with the rescinding of the notifications dated 30/31.01.2018 enforcing the amended Rule 138 of the Rules w.e.f. 01.02.2018 with regard to the E-Way Bill. Sri C.B. Tripathi, Special Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 may file counter affidavit within a month. Two weeks thereafter are allowed to the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit. List for admission/final disposal on the expiry of above period.


Court: High Court of Kerala Date of Order: 2018-03-21

According to me, it is for the petitioner to raise those grounds before the detaining authority itself at the first instance. In the said view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to complete the adjudication provided for under Section 129 of the statutes referred to above within a week from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is permitted to produce a copy of the judgment for compliance before the respondent.


Court: High Court of Bombay Date of Order: 2018-03-19

The petitioner in this petition states that it is a company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in the manufacture of Excavators, Loaders, Compactors, etc., falling under Chapter Heading 8429. The petitioner has its manufacturing facility/place of business at PlotsA & B, Talegaon Floriculture & Industrial Village, Ambi Navlakh – Umbhare, Talegaon, Dabhade, Pune410 507 from where it supplies machines manufactured by it to its dealers located in various parts of the country. The petitioner's manufacturing facility/factory was registered under the erstwhile Central Excise Act and the petitioner paid central excise duty on clearance of such machines from its factory. The petitioner has a Duty Paid Depot in the State of Maharashtra at PlotsA & B of the same village. The Duty Paid Depot was registered under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act prior to 172017, but was not registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Upon transitioning to GST, the petitioner's factory and depot obtained registration under GST in the State of Maharashtra.


Court: High Court of Allahabad Date of Order: 2018-03-20

The petitioner is an Association of the Distillers situate in Uttar Pradesh and has filed this petition seeking to restrain the respondents from levying Administrative Charges on sale and supply of molasses under the provision of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964. Molasses is an important raw material for distillers, which produces industrial alcohol and raw material for chemical industries in the state of U.P. Earlier, the State was charging Administrative Charges under the 1964 Adhiniyam as also the Trade Tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, later on replaced by U.P.Trade Tax Act, 1948. Administrative charges was also said to be a tax and as such, petitions were filed before this Court challenging the demand of Trade Tax along with Administrative Charges as being double taxation. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/S SAF Yeast Company Private Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 2008 NTN (Vol. 38) Pg. 296 held that the demand of Trade Tax on purchase of molasses was arbitrary illegal and unjust and accordingly allowed the Writ Petition to that extent. The operative portion of the said judgment is as follows as contained in the paragraphs 19 and 20 of the petition:-