M\/s. K.L. JOHAR AND COMPANY AND MS. GENERAL TRANSPORT Versus 1 ASST. STATE TAX OFFICER STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, ALUVA, STATE TAX OFFICER STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, ALUVA, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., AND STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
GST
2018 (10) TMI 1188 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 4-10-2018
WP(C). No. 6417 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
\nFor The Petitioner : SRI. HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT.K.KRISHNA AND SMT.MEERA V.MENON
\nFor The Respondent : DR. THUSHARA JAMES
\nJUDGMENT
\nThe petitioner, a distributor, had its goods intercepted and detained. Later, under Section 129 of the Central State Goods and Services Tax Ac<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n the Appellate Authority. For that, the learned counsel seeks the Court's indulgence to have the delay condoned because the petitioner, according to him, bona fide pursued this writ petition. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. K.L. JOHAR AND COMPANY AND MS. GENERAL TRANSPORT Versus 1 ASST. STATE TAX OFFICER STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, ALUVA, STATE TAX OFFICER STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, ALUVA, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., AND STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAMGST2018 (10) TMI 1188 – KERALA HIGH COURT – … Continue reading “M\/s. K.L. JOHAR AND COMPANY AND MS. GENERAL TRANSPORT Versus 1 ASST. STATE TAX OFFICER STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, ALUVA, STATE TAX OFFICER STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, ALUVA, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., AND STATE OF KERALA”<\/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-14596","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14596","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=14596"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14596\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14596"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14596"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14596"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that the Appellate Authority had been functioning even by the time the Ext.P8 was passed. At any rate, she submits that the petitioner can approach the Appellate Authority, file an application for condonation of delay, and plead its case.
\n6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
\n7. Indeed, the petitioner's counsel fairly concedes that in the face of an alternate remedy, the petitioner cannot persist with this writ petition. So he wants the<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n