https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375213 A writ court's refusal to exercise Article 226 jurisdiction on the ground of an available but time-barred statutory remedy was not interfered with, because appellate review of such discretionary refusal is limited to cases of unreasonableness. On the tax issue, intercepted goods were detained for want of proper documents, released on payment of penalty, and there was no proof that they were taken outside Kerala or delivered to a registered consignee. In those circumstances, the person who secured release was treated as acting for the transporter, and the facts supported a presumption of intra-State sale. The transporter was therefore held liable to assessment and tax under the KVAT regime. en-us Tue, 12 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Feb 2019 06:28:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375213 A writ court's refusal to exercise Article 226 jurisdiction on the ground of an available but time-barred statutory remedy was not interfered with, because appellate review of such discretionary refusal is limited to cases of unreasonableness. On the tax issue, intercepted goods were detained for want of proper documents, released on payment of penalty, and there was no proof that they were taken outside Kerala or delivered to a registered consignee. In those circumstances, the person who secured release was treated as acting for the transporter, and the facts supported a presumption of intra-State sale. The transporter was therefore held liable to assessment and tax under the KVAT regime. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 12 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375213