M\/s. ARMOUR STEEL BUILDINGS INDIA PVT LTD. Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCY OFFICE), THRISSUR AND THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR SQUAD NO. I, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR
GST
2018 (11) TMI 143 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 196 (Ker.)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 30-10-2018
WP (C). No. 35214 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
\nFor The Petitioner : SMT. S. K. DEVI AND SRI. SANTHOSH P. ABRAHAM
\nFor The Respondent : GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES
\nJUDGMENT
\nThe petitioner, an assessee under the GST Act in Tamil Nadu, sent goods across to the State. The Assistant State Tax Officer intercepted the goods and detained them. After the initial procedural formalities the petit<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n . The petitioner-Company is a dealer with its registration in Tamil Nadu. When it wanted to comply with the statutory demand and get the goods released, the respondent authorities insisted that the petitioner should have a temporary registration, remit the amounts using that registration, and get the goods released. The petitioner is disinclined to follow that procedure. In the alternative, the authorities wanted the driver of the vehicle to remit the amounts in his name and have the goods released. For this alternative, the petitioner's counsel cites practical difficulties as an answer. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. ARMOUR STEEL BUILDINGS INDIA PVT LTD. Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCY OFFICE), THRISSUR AND THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR SQUAD NO. I, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSURGST2018 (11) TMI 143 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 196 (Ker.)KERALA HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 30-10-2018WP (C). No. 35214 of … Continue reading “M\/s. ARMOUR STEEL BUILDINGS INDIA PVT LTD. Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCY OFFICE), THRISSUR AND THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR SQUAD NO. I, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR”<\/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-14800","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14800","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=14800"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14800\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14800"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14800"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14800"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Then, the Government pleader took instructions from the authorities, and informed the Court that the petitioner's representative can approach t<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n