Disposed

Husky Injection Molding Systems (India) Private Limited v. the Commissioner of State Tax

Kerala HC16 Jan 2019RP/10/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition challenging a writ order disposing of a plea regarding the release of detained goods under GST law and correcting a factual observation in the underlying judgment.

What did the court decide?

Modification of the writ judgment's last paragraph to remove reference to the petitioner's counsel agreeing to the arrangement; review petition disposed.

Husky Injection Molding Systems (India) Private Limited… — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 26TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

RP.No. 10 of 2019 IN WP(C). 41535/2018

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 41535/2018

¶7

===========

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER:

¶9

HUSKY INJECTION MOLDING SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI,HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO.P-47,8TH AVENUE,DOMESTIC TRAFFIC AREA,MAHINDRA WORLD CITY,NAHAM SUB POST,ANJUR VILLAGE,

¶10

CHENGALPET TALUK,KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU,PIN-603004,REPRESENTED BY MR.VALLIAPPA NAGARAJAN,MANAGER,LOGISTICS AND TRADE COMPLIANCE,AGED 56 YEARS,S/OP.RM V V VALIAPPAN.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.RAJESH NAIR SRI.JOSEPH PRABAKAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX KERALA GST DEPARTMENT,TAX TOWER KARAMANA.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695002.

¶14

2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(INT) PALAKKAD,KERALA GST DEPARTMENT PALAKKAD,PIN-678001.

¶15

3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX PALAKKAD,PIN-678001.

¶16

4 ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO.1,KERALA GST DEPARTMENT PALAKKAD,PIN-678001.

¶17

GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES.

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

RP.No. 10 of 2019 IN WP(C). 41535/2018

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner, a dealer with registration in the State of Tamil Nadu, had its goods detained here in Kerala. For it to have the interim custody, the authorities suggested 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:

¶23

“2. This case, as the Government Pleader submits, is covered by a Division Bench's judgment in Renji Lal Damodaran v. State Tax Officer¹ . 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 the goods released, the respondent authorities insisted that the petitioner should have a temporary registration, remit the amounts using that registration, and then get the goods released. The petitioner is disinclined to follow that procedure. It wants to remit the

¶24

1 Judgment dated 06.08.2018 in W.A. No.1640 of 2018

¶25

RP.No. 10 of 2019 IN WP(C). 41535/2018

¶26

¶27

amounts using its own Tamil Nadu registration and have the goods released. For this alternative, the Government Pleader cites practical difficulties as an answer.

¶28

3. Then, the Government pleader took instructions from the authorities, and informed the Court that the petitioner's representative can approach the authorities with a request to remit the amounts. They will generate the challan in the petitioner's name using a temporary registration and hand it over to the petitioner'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.

¶29

Recording the arrangement as suggested by the Government Pleader, and as agreed to by the petitioner's counsel, I dispose of the writ petition. ”

¶30

In this Review Petition, the petitioner has taken two contentions:

¶31

(i) The methods suggested by the authorities and accepted by this Court have no statutory sanction;

¶32

(ii) The judgment, in fact, records that the petitioner's counsel has agreed to the Government Pleader's suggestion; it is factually incorrect.

¶33

RP.No. 10 of 2019 IN WP(C). 41535/2018

¶34

¶35

As to the first objection, I reckon it is, perhaps, an eminent

¶36

ground of appeal; not that of review. About the second, at this length of time, I could not recollect whether the petitioner's counsel had agreed to the arrangement recorded in the Writ Petition. At any rate, to that extent, the judgment stands modified and the last paragraph reads as follows:

¶37

“Recording the arrangement as suggested by the Government Pleader, I dispose of the Writ Petition.”

¶38

The Review Petition is disposed of as above.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

Husky Injection Molding Systems (India) Private Limited v. the Commissioner of State Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Husky Injection Molding Systems (India) Private Limited v. the Commissioner of State Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mbk Logistix Private Limited Vs Union of India

Joakim Yesudasan Vs the Commissioner of Customs

S.Sivakumar Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Yasar Vs State Tax Officer

Rajeev Menon R Vs State Tax Officer

Manipal K12 Education (P) Ltd. Vs State Tax Officer