9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 804 - HC - GSTConstitutional validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act - the learned Single Judge had failed to advert to the other contentions raised in the writ petition, based on the question of limitation and other aspects - Held that - The fact is not disputed by learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, and it is conceded that the correctness of the decision in M/S. SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) -1, AND OTHERS 2019 (2) TMI 300 - KERALA HIGH COURT is now pending consideration in other writ appeals. A remittance of the writ petition for a fresh consideration and disposal based on the grounds raised other than the validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act, is necessary. The writ petition is restored on the files of this court for fresh consideration and disposal by the Single Judge.
Issues:
Challenge to notice and penalty imposition under KSGST Act, constitutional validity of Section 174, failure to consider all contentions in the judgment, remittance for fresh consideration. Analysis: The appellant challenged a notice and penalty imposition under the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act (KSGST Act) in a writ petition, arguing that the irregularities were related to transactions of another entity. Additionally, the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act was questioned. The writ petition was dismissed, citing a previous judgment that covered the issue against the petitioner. However, the appellant contended that the previous judgment only addressed the validity of Section 174 and not other grounds raised. The court acknowledged this oversight and agreed that a fresh consideration was necessary to address all grounds properly. Consequently, the writ appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment and restoring the writ petition for reconsideration on all grounds except the challenge to Section 174's validity. The court directed the writ petition to be placed before the Single Judge for reevaluation based on all grounds raised by the appellant. Any interim stay order in place at the time of the writ petition's dismissal was reinstated and to remain in effect until further proceedings. This decision aimed to ensure that all contentions presented by the appellant, beyond the challenge to Section 174's validity, receive due consideration and a just disposal by the court.
|
