https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221512 Section 47(7) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 bars a second penalty on goods that have already suffered penal action, but interference in writ jurisdiction depends on proof that the same consignment was proceeded against twice. Here, the record did not establish identity of the goods or that the earlier penalty related to the same consignment in the same condition; there was also no supporting reference to the forest pass in the earlier proceedings, the goods were not declared at the check posts, and the later valuation materially differed from the earlier estimate. On those facts, the writ challenge was rejected and interference under Article 226 was declined. en-us Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:39:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221512 Section 47(7) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 bars a second penalty on goods that have already suffered penal action, but interference in writ jurisdiction depends on proof that the same consignment was proceeded against twice. Here, the record did not establish identity of the goods or that the earlier penalty related to the same consignment in the same condition; there was also no supporting reference to the forest pass in the earlier proceedings, the goods were not declared at the check posts, and the later valuation materially differed from the earlier estimate. On those facts, the writ challenge was rejected and interference under Article 226 was declined. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221512