M\/s. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. Versus STATE TAX OFFICER, INVESTIGATION BRANCH, STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, THE BRANCH MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD, KOLKATTA AND STATE OF KERALA STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
GST
2018 (7) TMI 1636 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 29 (Ker.)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 16-7-2018
W. P. (C). No. 23251 of 2018
GST
MR. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
\nFor The Petitioner : Adv.Sri.Tomson T.Emmanuel
\nFor The Respondent : Smt. Thushara, Sri. Rajesh B., SC, Sri. Lal K. Joseph And Sreelal N. Warrier, SC
\nJUDGMENT
\nThe <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ral mondalities have yet to be finalised. In the meanwhile, if the respondents invoke the bank guarantee, the petitioner's right to statutory remedies becomes illusory. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. Versus STATE TAX OFFICER, INVESTIGATION BRANCH, STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, THE BRANCH MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD, KOLKATTA AND STATE OF KERALA STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAMGST2018 … Continue reading “M\/s. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. Versus STATE TAX OFFICER, INVESTIGATION BRANCH, STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS & SERVICES T”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12781","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12781","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12781"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12781\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12781"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12781"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12781"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy and, so, can approach the appellate authority.
\n4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.
\n5. Indeed, in terms of Section 107 of the Act, read with Rule 108 of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, to appeal, the petitioner has three months' time from the date of Ext.P8 impugned order. The 7th respondent is the appellate authority. Because the petitioner has three months' time to appeal, it may be i<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n