M/s. COCHIN SANITARY STORES Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, ALUVA, INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, MATTANCHERY AND STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 2019 (3) TMI 546 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Maintainability of petition – statutory remedy of appeal – Classification of goods – water and sanitary equipment – whether classified under entry 3(2) of Schedule III, appended to the KVAT Act, 2003, attracting tax at 4 or 5 per cent or under entry 101 of SRO 82 of 2006, attracting 12.5 per cent? – Held that:- The petitioner may have a good case on merits. That does not mean that we should ignore the sta
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
equipment, allegedly made of brass; that is, articles of brass. Claiming so, the petitioner has sought the articles it trades in to be classified under entry 3(2) of Schedule III, appended to the KVAT Act, 2003, attracting tax at 4 or 5 per cent. 2. But the Revenue, on the other hand, wanted it to be treated as articles of brass under entry 101 of SRO 82 of 2006, attracting 12.5 per cent. After providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the assessing authority has rendered Ext.P8 order of assessment. Assailing that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. At the outset, the Government Pleader has raised an objection: the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy. 4. In response, the learned counsel for the petitio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
arned counsel, under these circumstances, the respondent authorities ought not have restored the department's plea, already rejected as set out in Ext.P4. For that got nullified through the Ext.P5 judgment of this Court. 6. I reckon the petitioner may have a good case on merits. That does not mean that we should ignore the statutory remedies available before its knocking the doors of this Court. Despite my repeated queries, as I have already mentioned, the petitioner's counsel has simply persisted with the merits of the matter and has not supplied any valid reason why I should entertain this writ petition disregarding a statutory remedy. 7. I reckon the writ petition raises issues that can be addressed eminently by the appellate aut
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =