TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioners must pursue service classification disputes through alternative remedies rather than writ jurisdiction</h1> <h3>AMEX SERVICES Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE TAX, ASANSOL CHARGE</h3> AMEX SERVICES Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE TAX, ASANSOL CHARGE - 2025 (94) G.S.T.L. 231 (Cal.) The Calcutta High Court, through Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J., addressed a writ petition challenging the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax's order dated 16th July 2024, which imposed GST at 18% on the petitioners. The petitioners contended that their services fall under Heading 9965 (Goods Transport Agency Service) and relied on Section 61 of the GST Act and Instruction No. 2/2022 GST to argue that the assessing officer exceeded jurisdiction. The State countered that the petitioners had short paid their liability and were given a proper hearing; the order is appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act. The Court held that classification disputes constitute questions of fact to be decided on evidence and noted the availability of an alternative remedy. Consequently, the writ petition (W.P.A. 28448 of 2024) was disposed of with liberty to approach the appropriate forum. The Court stated, 'There shall be no order as to costs.'
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
