9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with Section 122(2)(b), 122(1)(i) and 125 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act issued by the 1st respondent - return filed by petitioner not accepted by 1st respondent - classification dispute - evasion of tax - HELD THAT:- As per the Judgment of this Court in the case M/S. CHAKKIATH BROTHERS VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES SPECIAL CIRCLE-1, ERNAKULAM [ 2014 (6) TMI 974 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondents: None Other Present: Sreelal Warrior-SC JUDGMENT DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.N. Sreekumaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sreelal N. Warrier, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the order imposing penalties for offence alleged under Section 74(9) read with Section 122(2)(b), 122(1)(i) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in original dated 24.07.2023 was passed. The petitioner had paid the assessed amount along with the interest in pursuant to the said order. The petitioner is not disputing the said liability, he is only aggrieved by the initiation of the penalty proceedings. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that whether the Hand Sanitizers were liable to be taxed at 12% or at 18% was not finally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt for passing a fresh order in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the Judgment in the case Chakkiath Brothers v. Assistant Commissioner (supra). 8. Therefore, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the file of the 1st respondent to decide the penalty proceedings after taking into consideration of the Judgment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
