2019 (1) TMI 1152 - HC - GST

Court modifies judgment, removes counsel's agreement reference, emphasizes Govt Pleader's suggestion

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

The court disposed of the Review Petition by modifying the judgment to remove the reference to the petitioner's counsel's agreement with the Government ... 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 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: “Recording the arrangement as suggested by the Government Pleader, I dispose of the Writ Petition.” The Review Petition is disposed of. Issues:1. Dispute over the method of payment for interim custody of goods detained in Kerala.2. Legal validity of the method suggested by authorities and accepted by the court.3. Factual accuracy of the agreement between petitioner's counsel and Government Pleader.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a dealer registered in Tamil Nadu, had goods detained in Kerala and sought interim custody. The authorities proposed a method involving temporary registration in Kerala for payment, which the petitioner opposed, preferring to pay using its Tamil Nadu registration. The court disposed of the Writ Petition based on an arrangement suggested by the Government Pleader, allowing the petitioner's representative to remit the amounts using temporary registration and then release the goods upon proof of payment.2. In the subsequent Review Petition, the petitioner raised two contentions. Firstly, challenging the lack of statutory sanction for the method accepted by the court, and secondly, disputing the factual accuracy of the agreement between petitioner's counsel and the Government Pleader as recorded in the judgment. The court acknowledged the first objection as a potential ground of appeal rather than review. Regarding the second objection, the court acknowledged difficulty in recalling the exact agreement between the parties and modified the judgment to reflect uncertainty about the petitioner's counsel's agreement.3. Ultimately, the court disposed of the Review Petition by modifying the judgment to remove the reference to the petitioner's counsel's agreement with the Government Pleader's suggestion, emphasizing the arrangement suggested by the Government Pleader as the basis for disposing of the Writ Petition. The legal validity of the method proposed by the authorities and accepted by the court remained a subject of potential future appeal, while the factual accuracy of the recorded agreement was clarified through the modification of the judgment.