PIAGGIO VEHICLES PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, KERALA, THE COMMISSIONER STATE GST DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THE SECRETARY CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI, UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE NEW DELHI AND THE AUTHORISED OFFICER THE GST NETWORK, NEW DELHI
GST
2018 (12) TMI 1085 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 18-12-2018
WP (C). No. 41284 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
\nFor The Petitioner : ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR
\nFor The Respondent : DR THUSHARA JAMES, GP.
\nJUDGMENT
\nThe petitioner, an assessee under the GST Act, manufactures and sells commercial vehicles. The petitioner<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n icials to demand tax and penalty and detention of goods and vehicle as unconstitutional till the smooth, efficient and glitches free functioning of the GST Net work system is guaranteed to assesses; = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" PIAGGIO VEHICLES PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, KERALA, THE COMMISSIONER STATE GST DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THE SECRETARY CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI, UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE NEW DELHI AND THE AUTHORISED OFFICER THE GST NETWORK, NEW DELHIGST2018 (12) TMI … Continue reading “PIAGGIO VEHICLES PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, KERALA, THE COMMISSIONER STATE GST DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THE SECRETARY CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI, UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY IT”<\/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-15598","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15598","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=15598"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15598\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15598"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15598"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15598"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n (iv) Declare the provision empowering the intercepting officer as the adjudicating authority for the same case as unconstitutional; and
\n (v) issue such other writ, order, or direction, which this Hon'ble court deems fit and necessary in the interest of justice.
\n2. The learned Division Bench of this Court in Renji Lal Damodaran v. State Tax Officer Judgment dated 06.08.2018 in W.A. No.1640 of 2018 has dealt with an identical issue.
\n3. Applying the ratio of that judgment, I direct the respondent authorities to release the petitioner<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n