HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKKODE, THE STATE TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT) STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE, THE SALES TAX OFFICER (RECOVERY) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE GSTDEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE AND STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
VAT and Sales Tax
2019 (2) TMI 395 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 23-1-2019
RP. No. 5 of 2019 IN WP(C). 41721\/2018
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
\nFor The Petitioner : ADV. SRI. M. P. SHAMEEM AHAMED
\nFor The Respondents : GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES
\nJUDGMENT
\nThe petitioner, a dealer in KVAT Act 2003, seeks the following<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Act. According to him, 20% must be of the disputed tax, rather than “the existing demand”, which includes interest as well. According to him, it will suffice if the authorities strictly adhere to the proviso to Section 55(4) of the Act. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKKODE, THE STATE TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT) STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE, THE SALES TAX OFFICER (RECOVERY) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE GSTDEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE AND STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAMVAT and Sales Tax2019 (2) TMI 395 – KERALA … Continue reading “HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKKODE, THE STATE TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT) STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE, THE SALES TAX OFFICER (RECOVERY) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONE”<\/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-16658","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16658","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=16658"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16658\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16658"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16658"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16658"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. To avoid ambiguity about the quantum to be paid by the petitioner as the pre-deposit before the appellate authority, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, informed the Court that the amount is Rs. 2,93,81,208\/-. According to her, that is 20% of the disputed tax. On this quantification, the petitioner's counsel agrees.
\n5. I, therefore, modify the judgment dated 20.12.2018 and hold that though the ratio of the judgment dated 06.09.2018 in W.P. (C)No.29440\/2018 applies as already indicated,<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n