OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. Versus THE STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, STATE TAX OFFICER (ENQUIRY) OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT.) , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 2018 (11) TMI 718 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Detention of Consignments – inter-state sale – sales tax already paid – scope of KVAT Act – Jurisdiction – Held that:- It is not a question of the second respondent's inherently lacking the jurisdiction-the subject matter jurisdiction – The authority may have decided erroneously, if at all. Then the petitioner's remedy lies under Section 57 of the Act.
–
Petition disposed off holding that the petitioner is free to invoke Section 57, or
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
tion. The authorities under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act insisted that the petitioner's transactions attract tax under the KVAT Act. On the petitioner's complaint, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes intervened and issued Ext.P1 direction to the departmental officials not to detain the petitioner's consignments. By then, the petitioner suffered detention on seventeen occasions. 3. On all seventeen occasions, the petitioner provided bank guarantee and got the goods released. Recently, the second respondent passed the Ext.P9 to P20 orders to adjust the security deposits the petitioner earlier furnished towards the penalty. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. The learned Senior Counsel has contended that t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
7. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 8. I reckon it is not a question of the second respondent's inherently lacking the jurisdiction-the subject matter jurisdiction. The authority may have decided erroneously, if at all. Then the petitioner's remedy lies under Section 57 of the Act. In this context, the learned Senior Counsel has nevertheless submitted that before the petitioner could approach the revision authority, the respondent authorities will encash the Bank guarantee to the petitioner's prejudice. I reckon there is force in his contention. Under these circumstances, without adverting to the merits, I dispose of the writ petition, holding
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =