TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Vehicle Confiscation Challenge Resolved: Petitioner Granted Permission to Secure Release After Meeting Legal Bond Requirements</h1> <h3>BIJU V.T. Versus THE SENIOR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM and FASALURAHMAN P.T.</h3> HC granted petitioner liberty to contact 1st respondent for vehicle release after furnishing required bond and sureties. The writ petition challenging ... Confiscation of goods alongwith vehicle - Petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to furnish bond and sureties against the demand of tax, penalty etc. - HELD THAT:- Considering the said statement, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent for release of the vehicle and the 1st respondent will take a decision for release of the vehicle on furnishing bond and sureties, in accordance with the law. Petition disposed off. Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment are the confiscation of a vehicle by the 1st respondent and the petitioner's request for its release through a writ petition.Confiscation of Vehicle (Issue i): The petitioner sought to quash the order confiscating their vehicle with registration number KL55Z3669, issued by the 1st respondent in Exhibit P-5.Interim Custody of Vehicle (Issue ii): The petitioner requested a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate direction to direct the 1st respondent to provide interim custody of the vehicle to them within a specified timeframe.English Translation of Documents (Issue iii): Additionally, the petitioner asked the court to dispense with the English translation of documents produced in the Vernacular Language.Other Reliefs (Issue iv): The petitioner also sought any other reliefs deemed fit and proper by the Hon'ble Court in the circumstances of the case.In the judgment, the counsel for the petitioner indicated that the petitioner would approach the 1st respondent for the release of the goods carriage vehicle, KL 55 Z 3669, and expressed willingness to provide bond and sureties for any tax or penalty obligations.Considering this submission, the court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to contact the 1st respondent for the vehicle's release. The 1st respondent was directed to decide on the release of the vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing the necessary bond and sureties as required by law.With the above directions and liberty given to the petitioner, the writ petition was finally disposed of by the court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
