ASIANET DIGITAL NETWORK PRIVATE LTD. Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, MOBILE SQUAD NO. 2, KOLLAM, THE STATE TAX OFFICER, KOLLAM AND THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTAL EXCISE AND CENTRAL TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
GST
2018 (12) TMI 139 – KERALA HIGH COURT – [2019] 61 G S.T.R. 396 (Ker), 2020 (32) G. S. T. L. 44 (Ker.)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 29-11-2018
WP (C). No. 38747 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
\nFor The Petitioner : ADV. SRI. SAJI VARGHESE
\nFor The Respondent : DR THUSHARA JAMES, GP. SRI SREELAL N, WARRIER, SC
\nJUDGMENT
\nThe petitioner is a cable TV and Internet services provider. It purchased a few Set Top Boxes. When it was transporting those goods, the Assistant State Tax Officer (“ASTO”) interce<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n But in the delivery challan, the set-top boxes were shown in two lots. The first lot comprises 200 boxes, and the value was shown as Rs. 3,20,000\/-. Though the petitioner mentioned the second lot as 600 boxes, the value was shown as zero because of, what the learned counsel terms, a computer error. Once the e-way bill has shown the correct amount and even the delivery challan shown the quantity, according to him, it is preposterous for anyone to presume that there is any suppression. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" ASIANET DIGITAL NETWORK PRIVATE LTD. Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, MOBILE SQUAD NO. 2, KOLLAM, THE STATE TAX OFFICER, KOLLAM AND THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTAL EXCISE AND CENTRAL TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAMGST2018 (12) TMI 139 – KERALA HIGH COURT – [2019] 61 G S.T.R. 396 (Ker), 2020 (32) G. S. T. L. 44 (Ker.)KERALA HIGH COURT … Continue reading “ASIANET DIGITAL NETWORK PRIVATE LTD. Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, MOBILE SQUAD NO. 2, KOLLAM, THE STATE TAX OFFICER, KOLLAM AND THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTAL EXCISE AND CENTRAL TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM”<\/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-15328","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15328","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=15328"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15328\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15328"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15328"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15328"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. The petitioner's counsel has also contended that the petitioner had been transferring the stock from one point of its business to another, for its use. Therefore, he is not liable to pay any tax. Thus, by the same reckoning, Section 129 does not apply.\n<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n