S.K.INTERNATIONAL v. SALES TAX INSPECTOR
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ petition is disposed of as above
Provisions considered
- theKVAT Act, 2003 s. 47(2)
- KVAT Act, 2003
Judgment
Operative part
K.M. JOSEPH, J.````````````````````````````````````````````````````W.P.(C) No. 23718 OF 2008 W````````````````````````````````````````````````````Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008J U D G M E N TExt.P2 is a notice issued under section 47(2) of theKVAT Act, 2003 detaining goods noting that the consignee'snon liability to pay tax under KVAT Act, 2003 is not provedfrom the accompanying documents. Petitioner has producedExt.P3 bank guarantee given by the Bhat Bazar Branch, Mumbai of the Union Bank of India. The petitioner has alsoproduced the confirmation of the same by the AssistantBranch Manager, Ernakulam Branch, Union Bank of India.2.I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learnedcounsel for the 3rd respondent(Union Bank of India, BhatBazar Branch, Mumbai) and learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader would point out that Rule 98 ofthe KVAT Rules requires bank guarantee given by a Bankwithin the State. Ext.P3 is seen furnished by the Bhat BazarBranch, Mumbai of the Union Bank of India. A perusal of WPC.23718/08: 2 :Rule 98 would show that it refers to cheques and drafts. Ialso find that the local branch at Ernakulam has alsoconfirmed the bank guarantee. Learned counsel for the 3rdrespondent also confirms Ext.P3. It is pointed out that thebank guarantee will last till 27.7.2009. I feel that the interestsof the State are adequately protected. There will be adirection to release the goods covered by Ext.P2 uponproduction of a copy of this judgment and accepting Ext.P3.The adjudicatory process will be completed at the earliest. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)aks
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petition is disposed of as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
theKVAT Act, 2003 — s. 47(2); KVAT Act, 2003.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 06 Aug 2008. The bench was K M JOSEPH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.