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.
Court: High Court of Kerala Date of Order: 2018-01-18
It is stated by the petitioner that one consignment of surgical gloves sent by the petitioner to three parties for quality appraisal on job work basis against Ext.P1 series delivery chalans has been detained by the respondent, in exercise of the power under section 129 of the SGST Act. Ext.P2 is the notice issued by the respondent to the petitioner in this connection as provided for under Section 129 of the SGST Act.
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Order: 2018-01-17
The first respondent, therefore, sent Ext.P6 reply to Ext.P4 explanation stating that the Form KER-1 declaration was uploaded by the petitioner only after the detention and therefore, the same cannot be accepted as a document in terms of the requirements contained in Rules 55 and 138 of the State GST Rules. In other words, the stand taken by the first respondent in Ext.P6 communication is that the goods can be released only on payment of the tax and penalty claimed in terms of Ext.P3 notice. Ext.P3 detention notice and Ext.P6 communication issued by the first respondent are under challenge in the writ petition.
Court: High Court of Madras Date of Order: 2018-01-17
The petitioner has challenged an order passed by the respondent being Order-in-Original No.04/2012-ST dated 26.07.2012, by which, the respondent has confirmed the demand of service tax as made in the show cause notice dated 10.10.2009 and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,23,454/- apart from demanding interest Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and imposing penalty. The petitioner preferred an appeal as against the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by order dated 04.03.2014 dismissed the appeal as being time barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not go into the merits of the matter and has held that he had no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the period of 90 days from the date of the order-inoriginal.
Court: High Court of Allahabad Date of Order: 2018-01-04
The ground for making seizure of goods is that the E-Way Bill had not been downloaded. However, it has come on record that before seizure there was some problem in downloading the E-way bill. The penalty order has not yet been passed. The petitioner is engaged in the trading of P.V. Solar Modules etc., which are all accounted for goods. The goods have been carried from West Bengal to Ghaziabad.
Court: High Court of Madras Date of Order: 2018-01-03
When the matter was listed on 12.12.2017, on that day, on behalf of the second respondent, the Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Madurai, has filed his counter-affidavit. This Court has taken note of the contents of the counter-affidavit and in paragraph No.3 observed that “in view of the fore-goings, it is represented on behalf of the second respondent/the Union of India that the petitioner's prayer No.(a) to (d) have been complied with. However, the petitioner, who appeared in person, informs this Court that the prayer No.(d) for increasing the flying squad in State Level, District Level, Zonal Level to monitor the movement of goods and E-Way Bills has not been answered in a proper manner by the second respondent/the Union of India
On perusal of records, we find that the delay has been justified and the reasons given by the applicant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal are acceptable. Accordingly, we condone the delay and direct the registry to take the appeal on record and list the same for disposal in its due course.
Court: GSTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2018-06-29
The appellant M/s Kagaz Packaging has brought this appeal against the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) in refusing to condone delay of 21 days in filing appeal before him and not going to the merit of the case concerning imposition of excise duty on packaging material used for export of foods along with interest and penalty awarded by the first adjudicating authority on the ground that appellant failed to produce rewarehousing certificate from the concerned authority against clearance of nil rate of duty under the cover of ARE-3.
Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2018-07-25
The Ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the issue is prima facie covered by the Ruling of this Tribunal in the case of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. V/s CCE & ST, Raipur in Appeal Nol. ST/54276/2017, Final Order No. 50878/2018 dated 22nd February, 2018.
Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2018-07-25
The issue relates to dispute as regards liability to pay Service Tax on intellectual property services under Reverse Charge Mechanism being service imported by the appellant assessee from France, against import for manufacture of aluminium products. The amount under dispute is 10 Crore approximately.