M/s. Pragati Automotion Pvt. Ltd., Versus The Union Of India Through Its Revenue Secretary, Department of Revenue,. Ministry of Finance
GST
2019 (2) TMI 424 – KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – 2019 (22) G. S. T. L. 5 (Kar.)
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 31-1-2019
WRIT PETITION No. 3159/2019 (T-RES)
GST
MRS. S. SUJATHA J.
ETITIONER [BY SRI RAVI RAGHAVAN, ADV.]
RESPONDENTS [BY SMT.M.R.VANAJA, ADV. FOR R-1; SRI K.M.SHIVAYOGISWAMY, ADV. FOR R-2, R-3, R-5 & R-6; SRI T.K.VEDAMURTHY, AGA FOR R-4 & R-7.)
O R D E R
Learned counsel Smt. M.R. Vanaja accepts notice for respondent No.1.
Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.4 and 7. Learned counsel Sri. K.M. Shivayogiswamy accep
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ob worker and held in his stock on behalf of the principal manufacturer in terms of Section 141 of CGST Act credit pertaining to job work. However, credit claim was indicated only in Column – 5 of Table 5(a) but not in Column – 6. The electronic credit ledger reflected credit of Rs. 5,89,346/-. The petitioner made several complaints before the Nodal Officer, but the same has not been considered so far.
3. It is hardly required to be stated that the Nodal Officer appointed under the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) and State Goods & Services Tax (SGST) Acts is obligated to consider the complaint of the petitioner and take a decision in the matter. However, the same has not been done, it is imperative for this Court to direct respondent N
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =