RAJ SANJAYBHAI TANNA Versus UNION OF INDIA
GST
2018 (9) TMI 610 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – 2018 (17) G. S. T. L. 370 (Guj.)
GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 30-8-2018
R\/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 161 of 2018
GST
MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR.B.N. KARIA JJ.
\nAppearance:
\nMR. RAJ S TANNA (10010) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,3,4
\nMR PRANAV TRIVEDI, AGP (99) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
\nORAL ORDER
\n(PER : MR. AKIL KURESHI)
\n1. This petition, in the nature of public interest, is filed by two petitioners. Petitioner No.1 is a practicing advocate, we are informed, mainly on the taxation side. Petitioner No.2 is also a tax consultant though we are informed not a practicing advocate. The petitioners have challeng<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n day of delay subject to a maximum of an amount calculated at a quarter per cent of his turnover. Principal contentions of the petitioners are that the Government is trying to recover penalty in the guise of late fee charges. As a result, the dealers losing their valuable right of appeals as well as right to point out that there was sufficient cause preventing them from filing the return within the due date. It was argued before us that in all previous laws which have been repealed by the statutes enacted under the new GST regime, such charges were categorized as penal in nature. Various practical difficulties in filing the returns including such as malfunctioning of the official portal which often times, prevents uploading of the returns we<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n o knock the door of justice. The public interest jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court, over a period of time, has been considerably expanded to take within its sweep range of issues not confined to the assertion of rights of weaker sections of the society or the marginalized groups. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" RAJ SANJAYBHAI TANNA Versus UNION OF INDIAGST2018 (9) TMI 610 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – 2018 (17) G. S. T. L. 370 (Guj.)GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 30-8-2018R\/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 161 of 2018 GSTMR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR.B.N. KARIA JJ. Appearance: MR. RAJ S TANNA (10010) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2 for the RESPONDENT(s) … Continue reading “RAJ SANJAYBHAI TANNA Versus UNION OF INDIA”<\/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-13657","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13657","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=13657"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13657\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13657"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13657"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13657"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nNevertheless, even after such expansion, public interest is confined to environmental issues, the issues of public accountability and such like. The reference in this respect can be made to the decision of Supreme Court in case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and ors reported in (2013) 3 SCC 402.
\n3. In the present petition, the petitioners who are themselves active tax consultants and tax practitioners have challenged the vire<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n