2018 (11) TMI 143 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 196 (Ker.) – Detention of goods – the respondent authorities insisted that the petitioner should have a temporary registration, remit the amounts using that registration, and get the goods released. The petitioner is disinclined to follow that procedure – Held that:- The Government pleader took instructions from the authorities, and informed the Court that the petitioner's representative can approach the authorities with a request to remit the amounts. They will generate the challan in the petitioner's name and hand it over to the petitioner's representative. That person, then, can approach the Bank, remit the amount, and produce the proof before the authorities. Thereafter, the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
espondents to permit the petitioner to remit the amounts demanded in Ext.P6 order to release the goods detained under Ext.P5 order. (ii) to grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case. 2. This case, as the Government Pleader submits, is covered by a Division Bench's judgment in Renji Lal Damodaran v. State Tax Officer Judgment dated 06.08.2018 in W.A. No.1640 of 2018. But before I consider that aspect, I must note the peculiarity of this case. The petitioner-Company is a dealer with its registration in Tamil Nadu. When it wanted to comply with the statutory demand and get the goods released, the respondent authorities insisted that the petitioner should have a tempo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =