^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

MUHAMMED KOCHUKUDIYIL ISHABEEVI ALIAS ISHA SHAEFI vs. STATE TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCE)
(Kerala High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

Pet. Counsel

K.m.firoz

Res. Counsel

Government Pleader

Petitioner / Applicant	MUHAMMED KOCHUKUDIYIL ISHABEEVI ALIAS ISHA SHAEFI
Respondent	STATE TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCE)
Court	Kerala High Court
State	Kerala
Date	Sep 30, 2020
Order No.	WP(C). No. 20468 of 2020(G)
Citation	2020(9) TAXREPLY 3406
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

AA |

ORDER
The petitioner, who is an assessee and registered dealer under the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is engaged in timber business. In the writ petition, she impugns Ext.P1 intimation that was issued to her in terms of Section 74(5) of the KGST Act read with Rule 142(1A) of the SGST Rules, whereby she was intimated of the tax, penalty and interest payment that she was required to make in the event of her opting to make such payment to avoid a show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the Act. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that although she has paid the tax amount intimated in Ext.P1, she ought not to be mulcted with a liability to pay interest thereon, and 15% of the penalty, in as much as the tax amount conceded by her has become payable only from the date on which the intimation was issued to her. In other words, the contention of the petitioner is essentially that she must be permitted to avail the option envisaged under Section 74 without pay....