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
VAT and Sales Tax
2018 (11) TMI 718 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 9-11-2018
WP (C).No. 36426 of 2018
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.), SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS, SRI.ISAAC THOMAS, SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM AND SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
For The Respondent : GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, dealing in elevators, enters into works contract with persons in State
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ded 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 the entire transaction falls beyond the mischief of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. So, as it is an inter-state sale, the petitioner has already paid the sales tax as is evident from Ext.P4.
5. On the Exts.P9 to P20 orders under the KVAT Act, the learned Senior Counsel agrees that the petitioner has an alternative remedy. Yet he asserts that the second respondent lacks jurisdiction over the transaction and, therefore, those orders are nonest.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
mitted 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 that the petitioner is free to invoke Section 57, or any other statutory provision, to seek redressal against the Ext.P9 to P20 orders. But as the petitioner has bona fide approached this Court, and now its approaching the revision authority may take some time; it serves the interest of justice if the petitioner is provided breathing time. Therefore, the authorities will defer encashing the bank guarantee for two months.
Case laws,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =