Latest GST Judgments

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library

The goods have been detained essentially on two grounds: (i) Since the goods were dispatched from Raipur, Chhatisgarh to Ahmedabad, State of Gujarat, the transaction could be said to be inter-State transaction and therefore, IGST should have been charged in the tax invoice and not the CGST and SGST; and (ii) in the E-way bill generated for the transaction in question, the place of delivery has been shown as the Dudheshwar, Ahmedabad. While in the tax invoice, the delivery location has been shown as Kubadthal, Daskroi. The matter is at the stage of GST MOV 07. Notice issued to the respondents

Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit –— The applicant challenged the detention notice which was done on the ground that IGST should have been charged in the tax invoice and not the CGST and SGST and the place of delivery in the e way bill is different than the tax invoice.  The applicant submitted that there is a clerical error in the invoice and as regards the discrepancy in the place of delivery.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court issued Notice to the respondents, returnable on 17th March 2022.

Professional services available Audit Management
Tax Lok English Viedo
Tax Lok Hindi Viedo
Check Your Tax Knowledge
Youtube
HR Consulting services

FOR FREE CONDUCTED TOUR OF OUR ON-LINE LIBRARIES WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVE-- CLICK HERE

FOR ANY SUPPORT ON GST/INCOME TAX

Do You Want To Take FREE DEMO Of Our GST/Income Tax Library.