HUSKY INJECTION MOLDING SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INT) PALAKKAD, KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, PALAKKAD AND ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO. 1, KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD – 2019 (1) TMI 1152 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Detention of goods – person in registered in other state not in the state of detention – Method suggested for interim custody – Review of earlier order [2019 (1) TMI 23 – KERALA HIGH COURT] – Held that:- As to the first objection, I reckon it is, perhaps, an eminent ground of appeal; not that of review. About the second, at this length of time, I could not recollect wheth
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ted a particular method. But the petitioner insisted that it would pay the bank guarantee and the bond based on its registration in Tamil Nadu, rather than on a temporary registration in Kerala, as suggested by the authorities. In that context, it filed this Writ Petition. This Court has disposed of the Writ Petition with the following observations: 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
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
etitioner's representative. That person, then, can approach the Bank, remit the amount, and produce the proof before the authorities. Thereafter, the authorities will release the goods. The petitioner's counsel agrees for this arrangement. Recording the arrangement as suggested by the Government Pleader, and as agreed to by the petitioner's counsel, I dispose of the writ petition. 2. In this Review Petition, the petitioner has taken two contentions: (i) The methods suggested by the authorities and accepted by this Court have no statutory sanction; (ii) The judgment, in fact, records that the petitioner's counsel has agreed to the Government Pleader's suggestion; it is factually incorrect. 3. As to the first objection, I
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =