PIONEER POLYLEATHERS LIMITED Versus ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, SQUAD NO. VIII, KERALA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD AND GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK EAST WING, 4TH FLOOR, WORLD MARK-1, NEWDELHI
GST
2018 (11) TMI 1075 – KERALA HIGH COURT – [2019] 64 G S.T.R. 149 (Ker)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 16-11-2018
WP(C). No. 37082 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
\nFor The PETITIONER : ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT. ARYA ANIL SMT. NILOOFAR O. NIZAM
\nFor The RESPONDENT : ADV. SRI. P. R. SREEJITH,SC, GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK
\nJUDGMENT
\nThe petitioner, a registered dealer, suffered the detention of its goods, under Section 129(3) of the GST Act. The Assistant State Tax Officer issued th<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n d that if the Court could have before it the GST Network, it will solve the problem. Therefore, I suo motu added GST Network as the 2nd respondent and notified the Standing Counsel. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n , the Government both at the Centre and in the State, have ushered in the GST Tax regime to ensure that everything is made online with minimum manual interventions. Yet strangely, the authorities still insist that the payment should be by physical means: either in cash or through Demand Draft. That insistence seems to be archaic and out of tune with the very spirit of the GST regime. In apportionment, there may be delays and difficulties, but the tax payer cannot be made to suffer, on that count. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" PIONEER POLYLEATHERS LIMITED Versus ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, SQUAD NO. VIII, KERALA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD AND GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK EAST WING, 4TH FLOOR, WORLD MARK-1, NEWDELHIGST2018 (11) TMI 1075 – KERALA HIGH COURT – [2019] 64 G S.T.R. 149 (Ker)KERALA HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 16-11-2018WP(C). No. 37082 of 2018 GSTMR … Continue reading “PIONEER POLYLEATHERS LIMITED Versus ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, SQUAD NO. VIII, KERALA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD AND GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK EAST WING, 4TH FLOOR, WORLD MARK-1, NEWDELHI”<\/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-15103","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15103","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=15103"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15103\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15103"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15103"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15103"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Today, the Standing Counsel has appeared and submitted that the GST Network is only an infrastructure provider. It has no statutory role to play in apportionment of the taxes between the State and the Centre.
\nIn this backdrop, the petitioner's counsel draws my attention to the Ext.P4 judgment, which is said to have attained finality. I reckon under identical circumstances, this Court, in the Ext.P4 judgment, that is Fashion Marble and Granite Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer and Others W.P.(C)No.21988\/2018, has held as follows:
\n “14. Un<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. Under these circumstances, applying the ratio of the judgment in Fashion Marbles and Granites Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer, I hold that the Assistant State Tax Officer shall release the goods and the vehicle forthwith.
\nThe Writ Pet<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n