M\/s. COCHIN SANITARY STORES Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, ALUVA, INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, MATTANCHERY AND STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
VAT and Sales Tax
2019 (3) TMI 546 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 26-2-2019
WP(C). No. 3978 of 2019
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
\nFor The Petitioner : ADV. SRI. VIJAYAN. K. U.
\nFor The Respondent : GP DR\/ THUSHARA JAMES
\nJUDGMENT
\nThe petitioner trades in water and sanitary equipment, allegedly made of brass; that is, articles of brass. Claiming so, the petitioner has sought the arti<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n d not be efficacious, he has nevertheless insisted that the assessing authority has rendered Ext.P8 on an erroneous reading of not only facts, but also law. According to him, he has even ignored a binding judgment of this Court, that is Ext.P5. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. COCHIN SANITARY STORES Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, ALUVA, INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, MATTANCHERY AND STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAMVAT and Sales Tax2019 (3) TMI 546 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMIKERALA HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 26-2-2019WP(C). … Continue reading “M\/s. COCHIN SANITARY STORES Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, ALUVA, INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, MATTANCHERY AND STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, STATE GOOD”<\/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-17289","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17289","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=17289"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17289\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17289"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17289"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17289"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. To elaborate, the learned counsel submits that the goods the petitioner trades in come under HSN 7419.99.30 and they attract only 5 per cent tax. In fact, in 2006, through Ext.P3, the then Commissioner clarified this issue. But later, when the successor officer tried to trifle through the Ext.P4 with that clarification, this Court in Ext.P5 judgment has upheld the Ext.P3. According to the learned counsel, under these circumstances, the respondent authorities ought not have restored the department<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n