https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370375 The writ petition was declined on merits because the challenge to detention and orders adjusting security deposits towards penalty did not disclose an inherent lack of jurisdiction, but only a possible error on merits. The Court held that the petitioner should pursue the statutory revisional remedy under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act instead of invoking writ jurisdiction. However, because immediate encashment of the bank guarantee could prejudice the petitioner before revision was filed, limited interim protection was granted by directing deferment of encashment for two months. en-us Fri, 09 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Nov 2018 07:56:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370375 The writ petition was declined on merits because the challenge to detention and orders adjusting security deposits towards penalty did not disclose an inherent lack of jurisdiction, but only a possible error on merits. The Court held that the petitioner should pursue the statutory revisional remedy under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act instead of invoking writ jurisdiction. However, because immediate encashment of the bank guarantee could prejudice the petitioner before revision was filed, limited interim protection was granted by directing deferment of encashment for two months. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 09 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370375