Reshma K. vs. State Tax Officer
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the second respondent under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had also deposited 10% of the disputed tax.
In the light of the fact that the petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax, all coercive steps against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal. The writ petition is disposed of as above. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE ln
WP(C).No.17314/2019 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 63 AND SECTION 122 OF CGST ACT AND SGST ACT (AY-2017-2018). EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3COVERING LETTER ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT. EXHIBIT P4POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. EXHIBIT P5OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT. EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL. //// P.A.TO JUDGE
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.