THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAXES DEPARTMENT, WAYANAD AND THE STATE TAX OFFICER, SURVEILLANCE SQUAD, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, WAYANAD Versus M/s ALFA ALUMINIUM
GST
2018 (6) TMI 1265 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 23 (Ker.) , [2018] 2 GSTL 124 (Ker)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 22-6-2018
W. A. No. 1038 of 2018
GST
Mr. K. Vinod Chandran And Mr. Ashok Menon, JJ.
For The Appellant : Sri. Mohammed Rafiq
For The Respondent : Sri. Dinesh R Shenoy
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J:
State is in appeal challenging the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge.
2. The respondents/writ petitioners, dealers under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for br
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
on today. We notice that there is clear distinction on facts insofar as, therein the transaction was alleged to be not taxable for reason of the transport being made to the work site of one of the applicants and the other after job works, to the business premises of the dealer. Therein, there was a delivery challan under Rule 55 of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules. The learned Single Judge had found that since the genuineness of the said challan was not suspected, there could be no tax evasion. In the present case, the goods were transported on payment of tax; but, however, the dealer intends to re-sell the goods from his dealership. In such circumstances, suspicion of evasion cannot be brushed aside at this stage.
4. The learned Si
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =