HUSKY INJENCTION MOLDING SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INT.) PALAKKAD, KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, PALAKKAD, ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, SQUAD NO. 1, KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD – 2019 (1) TMI 23 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Detention of goods with vehicle – Section 129 of the GST Act – Held that:- The petitioner-Company is a dealer with its registration in Tamil Nadu. When it wanted to comply with the statutory demand and get the goods released, the respondent authorities insisted that the petitioner should have a temporary registration, remit the amounts using that registration, and then get
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ESHADRI NAIDU, J. For The Petitioner : ADVS. SRI. RAJESH NAIR AND SRI. JOSEPH PRABAKAR For The Respondent : GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assessee under the GST Act in Tamil Nadu, sent goods across to the State. The Assistant State Tax Officer intercepted the goods and detained them. After the initial procedural formalities, the petitioner suffered an order under Section 129 of the GST Act. Aggrieved, it has filed this writ petition, for these reliefs: (i) Issue a writ of Certiorai, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, calling for the records leading to the issue of Exts.P13 and P14 notice and after scrutinizing the same, to str
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
in Renji Lal Damodaran v. State Tax Officer Judgment dated 06.08.2018 in W.A. No.1640 of 2018. But before I consider that aspect, I must note the peculiarity of this case. The petitioner-Company is a dealer with its registration in Tamil Nadu. When it wanted to comply with the statutory demand and get the goods released, the respondent authorities insisted that the petitioner should have a temporary registration, remit the amounts using that registration, and then get the goods released. The petitioner is disinclined to follow that procedure. It wants to remit the amounts using its own Tamil Nadu registration and have the goods released. For this alternative, the Government Pleader cites practical difficulties as an answer. 3. Then, the Gov
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =