HIGH COURT OF MADRAS M. Bagulayan v. Superintendent of Central GST & Central Excise* G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J. W.P.(MD) NO. 24208 OF 2017 W.M.P.(MD) NO. 20317 OF 2017 JANUARY 24, 2018 T. Bashyam for the Petitioner. R. Aravindan, Standing Counsel for the Respondent. ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 2. By consent of both the parties the main… Read More »
Issue A taxable person transports the goods procured by them for own use to the site where the goods are to be consumed. The present transaction would not fall within the scope of taxable supply under the statutes. Thus the petitioner has not uploaded the declaration in Form KER-1 before the goods were transported. Goods… Read More »
Held The power of detention contemplated under Section 129 of the SGST Act can be exercised only in respect of goods which are liable to be confiscated under Section 130 of the SGST Act; that there is no taxable supply when goods are transported on delivery chalans so long as the authenticity of the delivery… Read More »
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS K.K. Ramesh v. Union of India M. SATHYANARAYANAN AND MRS. R. HEMALATHA, JJ. W.P. (MD) NO. 16112 OF 2017 JANUARY 3, 2018 K.K. Ramesh for the Petitioner. Ms. S. Logeshwari for the Respondent. ORDER M. Sathyanarayanan, J. – By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner seems to have been aggrieved by… Read More »
[ 2017 ] 06092017 TaxHeal.com 19122017 (Allahabad) HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD Modern Pipe Industries v. State of U.P. PANKAJ MITHAL AND UMESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, JJ. WRIT TAX NO. 583 OF 2017 SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 Piyush Agrawal, Counsel for the Petitioner. C.B. Tripathi and Krishna Agarwal, Counsels for the Respondent. ORDER 1. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by Shri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for… Read More »
Held The issue of mis-classification and under valuation has to be gone into by the respective assessing officers and not by the detaining officer. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to permit the further detention of the goods. The petitioners shall be permitted release of the goods on the execution of simple bond without… Read More »
Issue Corporation disqualified the petitioner no.1 treating its bid as non-responsive and ineligible on the sole ground that while submitting the bid the petitioner no.1 has not paid Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter referred to as the “GST”) to the respondent with the Bid/ Document Fee. Held once having participated in the tender process thereafter… Read More »
Facts It appears that the petitioner did not dispute the classification as under entry 84329010, but submitted that the correct rate of IGST should be at 12%. The respondent has taken a decision by classifying the goods by fixing the rate of tax at 18% and in support of such conclusion has given certain reasons… Read More »
Assessee Contention Appellant has got copyright over the photographs which are visible on its website and hence, the appellant charges the amount for copyright. The submission was that as the amount charged is for copyright, it will not be a service rendered falling under the category “Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval”. Held :… Read More »
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD Sachdeva Overseas v. State of U.P. PANKAJ MITHAL AND UMESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, JJ. WRIT TAX NO. 630 OF 2017 SEPTEMBER 8, 2017 ORDER 1. The petitioner is a partnership firm. 2. On the enforcement of the GST, it got itself migrated for the purposes of GST as a partnership firm but instead of issuing registration… Read More »