Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh Date of Order: 2018-08-23
According to the petitioner, M. P. State Government or officials authorized under the MPGST Act, 2017 have no jurisdiction to exercise the powers under the Integrated Goods and Services Act, 2017 (in short "the IGST Act, 2017), particularly under Section 4 of the IGST Act, 2017.
Court: High Court of Madras Date of Order: 2018-08-21
Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents 3 & 4. Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel takes notice for the respondents 1 & 2. Mr.J.Kumaran, learned Government Advocate (P) takes notice for the fifth respondent. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-10-10
None present for the appellant. After hearing the ld. AR, I find that the reason given by the appellant is satisfactory. The delay being nominal is condoned and the miscellaneous application for condoning the delay is allowed. Registry to list the appeal for hearing in its turn.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-10-08
After hearing both sides, I find that the reason given by the appellant is satisfactory. The delay being nominal is condoned and the miscellaneous applications for condoning the delay are allowed. Registry to list the appeals for hearing in its turn.
Court: GSTAT Allahabad Date of Order: 2018-10-05
The case has been called out but no one has appeared on behalf of the appellant, though Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue is present.
Court: GSTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2018-10-05
After considering the submissions made and perusal of appeal records, I find that the delay has been suitably justified. Accordingly, I allow the application for condonation of delay and direct the Registry to take on record the appeal and list the same for disposal in its due course.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-10-04
After hearing both sides, I find that the delay has occurred for the reason that the appellant was preoccupied with finalizing of books of accounts and submission of Income Tax returns etc. After the introduction of GST, the assessees are indeed being put to a position of handling GST as well as legacy issues. Therefore, I find that the delay occurred has to be condoned. However, the delay being of 218 days, I am of the view that the appellant has to be put to cost. I direct the appellant to deposit Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) within a period of one month from today. Failure to comply with such direction shall result in dismissal of COD application along with the appeal. Compliance to be reported on 5.11.2018.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-10-03
On behalf of the applicant, Shri S. Ramachandran, ld. consultant appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that on the date of hearing of appeal i.e. 10.10.2016, the appellant or the consultant could not appear before the Tribunal for the reason that it was Saraswathi Pooja festival day, and was a working day in that calendar year. For such reason, the appellant could not appear and argue the matter. However, the Tribunal took up the matter for disposal in the absence of the appellant / representative. Thus, he argued that the appellant could not forth his argument before the Bench and therefore requested for restoring the appeal and rehear the same.
Court: GSTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2018-10-01
There is delay of 85 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reason for delay is satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed.
Court: High Court of Kerala Date of Order: 2018-08-09
A trader, an assessee under the new tax regime (GST), wants to carry goods (timber) inter-state. The vehicle intercepted on the route, it faces detention—and a possible confiscation—proceedings. It has not uploaded or carried with it a completed e-way bill: Part B is incomplete. After receiving a notice, the trader replied, and then received an order: the detaining officer demanded tax and penalty under the law. Aggrieved, the trader questioned the detention and the concomitant proceedings.