HUSKY INJENCTION MOLDING SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INT.) PALAKKAD, KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, PALAKKAD, ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, SQUAD NO. 1, KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD
GST
2019 (1) TMI 23 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 21-12-2018
WP (C). No. 41535 of 2018
GST
MR. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
\nFor The Petitioner : ADVS. SRI. RAJESH NAIR AND SRI. JOSEPH PRABAKAR
\nFor The Respondent : GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES
\nJUDGMENT
\nThe petitioner, an assessee under the GST Act in Tamil Nadu, sent goods across to the State. The Assistant State Tax Officer int<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n can accept the tax and penalty as demanded by them (subject to the right of the petitioner to challenge the same) from the petitioner only through the registered GST Portal of the petitioner. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" HUSKY INJENCTION MOLDING SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INT.) PALAKKAD, KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, PALAKKAD, ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, SQUAD NO. 1, KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKADGST2019 (1) TMI 23 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMIKERALA HIGH COURT – HCDated:- … Continue reading “HUSKY INJENCTION MOLDING SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INT.) PALAKKAD, KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, P”<\/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-15792","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15792","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=15792"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15792\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n (iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or directions, directing the respondent to release the goods to the petitioner as per the conditions as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.
\n2. This case, as the Government Pleader submits, is covered by a Division Bench's judgment in Renji Lal Damodaran v. State Tax Officer Judgment dated 06.08.2018 in W.A. No.1640 of 2018. But before I consider that aspect, I must note the peculiarity of this case. The petitioner-Company is a dealer with its registration in Tamil Nadu. When it w<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n