M\/s. PANEL SOURCE LLP Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SQUD NO. V, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES, KASARAGOD, THE STATE TAX OFFICER, SQUARD NO. V, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KASARAGOD THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI
GST
2018 (10) TMI 1139 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 193 (Ker.)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 16-10-2018
WA. No. 1907 of 2018
GST
MR K.VINOD CHANDRAN AND MR ASHOK MENON, JJ.
\nFor The APPELLANT : SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM)
\nFor The RESPONDENT : SRI N NAGARESH, ASGI AND SRI MOHAMMED RAFIQ, SR GP
\nJUDGMENT
\nVinod Chandran, J.
\nThe Writ<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n sed the Writ Petition itself, in which there was a challenge against the Rule. We were of the opinion that the interim application had to be considered first and in the Writ Petition notice had to be issued before the challenge to the Rule was considered. We, hence, directed the appellant to file a review before the learned Single Judge. The same has been filed and is pending before the learned Single Judge. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. PANEL SOURCE LLP Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SQUD NO. V, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES, KASARAGOD, THE STATE TAX OFFICER, SQUARD NO. V, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KASARAGOD THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, … Continue reading “M\/s. PANEL SOURCE LLP Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SQUD NO. V, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES, KASARAGOD, THE STATE TAX OFFICER, SQUARD NO. V, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KASARAGOD THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIP”<\/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-14577","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14577","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=14577"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14577\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14577"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14577"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14577"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. At this point, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant would withdraw the challenge against Rule 140 and only insists on consideration of the release of the vehicle. We record the submission of the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant that the challenge against Rule 140 is not pressed. In suc<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n