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: 2018-03-14

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.


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.