Shafi Khan Khokhar Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.
GST
2018 (12) TMI 1354 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 513 (Bom.)
BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 21-12-2018
WRIT PETITION NO. 2951 OF 2018
GST
AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
\nMr. Anand Mishra i\/by Mr. A.M.Saraogi for the Petitioner
\nMr. Amit Shastri, AGP for Respondent No. 1
\nMr. Pradeep S. Jetly a\/w Mr. J.B. Mishra for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3
\nP.C.:
\n1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge an enquiry initiated by respondent No. 2 – The Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise (AE) Mumbai. This by issuing summons to him dated 28.9.2018 under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 70 of th<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n etitioner has taken registration under the CGST Act 2017 & Finance Act, 1994 (service tax) in Mumbai. Thus, having taken registration, he is subject to the jurisdiction of Mumbai authorities in respect of the business which he has carried out within jurisdiction of the authority. It is the case of the petitioner that primarily his business is at Jaipur. This, however, would not determine the issue of whether or not respondent No. 2 has jurisdiction. This is more particularly so as Section 25 of the CGST Act 2017 provides for a separate registration in respect of each state. Once registration has been taken in Mumbai and some services have been rendered in Mumbai, then the petitioner is subject to the jurisdiction of Mumbai Authorities. Thus<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Shafi Khan Khokhar Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.GST2018 (12) TMI 1354 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 513 (Bom.)BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 21-12-2018WRIT PETITION NO. 2951 OF 2018 GSTAKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. Mr. Anand Mishra i\/by Mr. A.M.Saraogi for the Petitioner Mr. Amit Shastri, AGP for … Continue reading “Shafi Khan Khokhar Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.”<\/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-15694","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15694","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=15694"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15694\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15694"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15694"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15694"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n