M/s. Sameer Mat Industries And M/s. Kaleel Mat Industries Versus State of Kerala, The Assistant State Tax Officer, Thiruvananthapuram And Fathima Store
GST
2017 (12) TMI 202 – KERALA HIGH COURT – [2017] 1 GSTL 16 (Ker), [2017] 1 GSTL 28 (Ker), 2018 (10) G. S. T. L. 136 (Ker.)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 20-11-2017
W.P.(C)No.36413 of 2017
GST
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
For The Petitioner : Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, Sri.P.Gopinath, Sri.K.John Mathai, Sri.Joson Manavalan, Sri.Kuryan Thomas, Sri.Paulose C. Abraham, sri.raja kannan
For The Respondent : Dr.Thushara James And Sri.Bobby John
JUDGMENT
The petitioner the consignor of certain goods has approached this Court against the notice issued by the detaining authorit
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
for one other commodity as also a security deposit of an equal amount.
2. The essential contention taken up by the petitioner is that the goods were transported inter-State and neither CGST nor SGST was applicable to such goods. It is also contended that the HSN Code as disclosed in the invoice is the one used by the manufacturer. The petitioner having purchased the goods from the manufacturer at Delhi could not change the HSN Code in which event there would be a violation of the provisions of the tax statutes. It is further contended that the E-way Bill uploading procedure as provided in the Rules to the CGST which has been adopted under the IGST is not implemented as of now. The same is deferred till 31.12.2017. Hence to support the cas
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
n empowered to implement the provisions of the enactments which regulates the inter-State as also the intra-State trade. However the specific power invoked in issuing the impugned notice is under the CGST/SGST which is applicable only to the intra-state movement of goods. Admittedly the petitioner has consigned the goods from Tamil Nadu and was transporting it to the 3rd respondent at Pattambi. The 3rd respondent also appears and submits that they are ready to accept the consignment. The issue of misclassification 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 b
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =