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:-
Court: High Court of Rajasthan Date of Order: 2018-03-16
By an appropriiate order or diirectiion the Order-iin-Appeall No..340 (KKG)ST/JPR-II/2009 dated 30..11..2009 passed by the Commiissiioner (Appeall),, may kiindlly be conffiirmed by the Hon’’blle Court.. C.. Any other order or diirectiion whiich the Hon’’blle Court deems ffiit and proper iin the ffacts and ciircumstances off the case may kiindlly be passed iin ffavour off the appellllant and agaiinst the respondents.. The cost off the Miisc.. Centrall Exciise Appeall may kiindlly be awarded iin ffavour off the appellllant ffrom the respondents.
Court: High Court of Madras Date of Order: 2018-03-15
The present Writ Petition is filed as a 'Public Interest Litigation' by the petitioner/party-in-person, stating among other things, that Goods and Service Tax is based on two parliamentary Acts, namely the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, for the covered object of “One Nation One Tax” and the said Act came to be passed during April, 2017.
Court: High Court of Kerala Date of Order: 2018-03-14
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: 2018-03-14
The issue raised in all these Appeals/Writ Petitions are with respect to the liability of chit transactions, to service tax as arising from the Finance Act, 1994. The issue arises during three periods, in so far as the amendments made to the Finance Act, 1994. They are, pre-2012, between 2012 to 2015 as also post-2015. According to the various establishments carrying on chits, who are the appellants in the maximum number of appeals/petitions in the batch, contend that the issue is squarely covered by AIR 2017 SC 3730, Union of India v. Margadarshi Chit Funds (P) Ltd . The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that there is ambiguity in so far as the coverage between 2012 and 2015. An appeal is also filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax & Customs, numbered as W.A.No.281/2018. WA.273/2013 & connected cases
Court: High Court of Kerala Date of Order: 2018-03-12
Goods of the petitioner have been detained by the second 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 on the ground that the same were being transported without the requisite documents. The petitioner concedes that the goods were not accompanied by the requisite documents. It is stated, however, that though the requisite documents have been subsequently furnished, the second respondent is refusing to release the goods. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in this writ petition.
Court: High Court of Allahabad Date of Order: 2018-02-01
The submission is that as admittedly the seized goods were in transit from outside the State the transaction would be covered by the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (I.G.S.T.) read with Central G.S.T. and that the provisions of the U.P. G.S.T. or its Rules or the notifications issued therein would not apply. Sri Tripathi, has submitted that actually the order of seizure has been passed under Section 6 of the I.G.S.T. read with Section 129(1) of the Central G.S.T. and therefore, mere wrong mention of the provision on the order of seizure would not invalidate the same.
Court: High Court of Allahabad Date of Order: 2018-01-31
The petitioner is in the business of manufacturing and sale of 'Tasla' which is categorised as an agricultural implement. The petitioner was transporting a consignment of 'Taslas' from one State to another when the same were intercepted, detained and seized at Ghaziabad. Theseizure order is impugned by means of this petition.
Court: High Court of Allahabad Date of Order: 2018-01-25
The petitioner has equally efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the penalty order under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. It is left open to the petitioner to take recourse to the statutory remedy available to him under the law.
Court: High Court of Kerala Date of Order: 2018-01-24
The case of the first petitioner is that certain goods have been consigned by M/s.GlaxoSmithKline through the second petitioner transporter to the first petitioner as also to a distributor at Ottappalam; that the crew of the vehicle interchanged the documents of the goods to be delivered to the first petitioner and to the distributor at Ottappalam; that the conveyance and the goods intended to be delivered to the distributor at Ottappalam were detained by the second respondent under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax and the Kerala State Goods and Services Act on account of the discrepancy of the documents, and the first petitioner has been given Ext.P1 notice directing them to show cause why action shall not be taken against them under Section 129 of the CGST and SGST Acts.