M\/s Shri Kunj Bihari Industries LLP Versus State of Haryana and another
GST
2019 (2) TMI 1217 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – TMI
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 24-1-2019
CWP No. 24287 of 2018
GST
MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, JJ.
\nFor The petitioner (s) : Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advoate
\nFor The Respondent : Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate
\nORDER
\nAJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
\nThis order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 24287 & 24291 of 2018, as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issue involved therein is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 24287 of 2018.
\n2. Petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226\/227 of the Constitutio<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ST Act, 2017 read with Rules 117(1), 118, 119 & 120 of the CGST Rules, 2017, to sanction the Tran-1 amount to the petitioner. However, it is further stated that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi, vide their notification No. 48\/2018-Central Tax, dated 10.09.2018, has extended the time period for applying the Tran-1 Claim upto 31st march, 2019. Therefore, the petitioner can claim by applying the Tran-1 claim within the extended period till 31st March, 2019. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Shri Kunj Bihari Industries LLP Versus State of Haryana and anotherGST2019 (2) TMI 1217 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – TMIPUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 24-1-2019CWP No. 24287 of 2018 GSTMR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, JJ. For The petitioner (s) : Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advoate For The … Continue reading “M\/s Shri Kunj Bihari Industries LLP Versus State of Haryana and another”<\/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-16910","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16910","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=16910"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16910\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16910"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16910"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16910"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. In support of the aforesaid contention, short written statements on behalf of respondent No.2 (in CWP Nos. 24287 & 24291 of 2018) have been filed in Court today. The same are taken on record, subject to al<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n