M\/s. SWARNASHILPI Versus ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OFREVENUE, NEW DELHI AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAXES DEPARTMENT, 3RD FLOOR, TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
GST
2018 (12) TMI 839 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 5-12-2018
RP. No. 991 of 2018 In WP(C). 13090\/2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
\nFor The Petitioner : ADV. SRI. RUBEN GEORGE ROCK
\nFor The Respondent : DR THUSHARA JAMES, GP. SRI. T. V. VINU, CGC.
\nORDER
\nIn W.P.(C) No.13090 of 2018, the petitioner challenged the Ext.P6 a<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n According to the petitioner's counsel, as the petitioner bona fide pursued its remedy before this Court in W.P.(C) No.13090 of 2018, there occurred some delay, which would be fatal if the petitioner goes before the appellate authority. There ought to be an observation on that delay from this Court. According to him, the judgment in the earlier writ petition, based on which this writ petition was disposed of, contained no reference to the delay. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. SWARNASHILPI Versus ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OFREVENUE, NEW DELHI AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAXES DEPARTMENT, 3RD FLOOR, TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAMGST2018 (12) TMI 839 – KERALA HIGH COURT – … Continue reading “M\/s. SWARNASHILPI Versus ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OFREVENU”<\/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-15529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15529","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=15529"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15529\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15529"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15529"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15529"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Heard the petitioner's counsel and the learned Government Pleader.
\n5. I reckon the petitioner's apprehension is genuine. I, therefore, in modification of the judgment dated 23rd October 2018 in W.P.(C) No.13090 of 2018, hold that if the petitioner approaches the appellate authority-t<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n