KOHINOOR FLOORS PVT. LTD. Versus STATE TAX OFFICER, ERNAKULAM AND STATE TAX OFFICER, ERNAKULAM
GST
2018 (7) TMI 1744 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 815 (Ker.)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 12-7-2018
W. P. (C) No. 39178 of 2017
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
\nFOR THE PETITIONER : SRI.ANIL D. NAIR, SRI.R.SREEJITH, SRI.P.JINISH PAUL, KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY, SRI. ASISH MOHAN AND SRI. G. KRISHNAKUMAR (MALLYA)
\nFOR THE RESPONDENT(S) : SRI. SHAMSUDHEEN V. K.
\nJUDGMENT
\nIn the petitioner's premises, the Sales Tax Department conducted search and seizure, under Rule 137 of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (the Rules). It seized many documents, besides a pen drive. The Department, it seems, copied on <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n orders, payment vouchers, credit bills, and so on. All these transactions must have, in the first place, been reflected in the ledgers maintained by the petitioner. Unless the petitioner produces those ledgers, the Department cannot part with the seized documents. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" KOHINOOR FLOORS PVT. LTD. Versus STATE TAX OFFICER, ERNAKULAM AND STATE TAX OFFICER, ERNAKULAMGST2018 (7) TMI 1744 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 815 (Ker.)KERALA HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 12-7-2018W. P. (C) No. 39178 of 2017 GSTMR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI.ANIL D. NAIR, SRI.R.SREEJITH, SRI.P.JINISH … Continue reading “KOHINOOR FLOORS PVT. LTD. Versus STATE TAX OFFICER, ERNAKULAM AND STATE TAX OFFICER, ERNAKULAM”<\/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-12873","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12873","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=12873"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12873\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12873"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12873"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12873"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. To elaborate, the Department apprehends that once it hands over the copies of the seized documents, the petitioner will fabricate records as if they had existed from the beginning. So the Department refused to provide copies of the documents seized. About the pen drive, the Government Pleader contends that it only contains copies of the documents available in the petitioner's system.
\n6. Indeed, the Department's apprehension seems well placed. But the petitioner went <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n