M, when a revised notice was issued by the first respondent on the same date i. M effecting a detailed calculation as to the actual facts and figures and demanding security to a reduced extent of Rs. P5 notice dated
|Date Added:||25 November 2018|
|File Size:||9.16 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was only a 'technical mistake' and that the change in the relevant provision of law was not known to the 'consignor', which led to filing of Form 8F declaration, instead of Form 8FA declaration. The version of the petitioner is that the goods were accompanied by Form 8F declaration. P6 is that the change of legal position was not known to the 'consignor'.
There is no case for the petitioner that he was not aware of the change of the legal provision.
P5, reads as follows:. On going through the materials of record, it is seen that the absence of Form 8FA in support of the transportation stands conceded. There is no explanation for the petitioner anywhere in the writ petition. The goods as above were brought through a Shipping Agency via Cochin Port and the container was being taken to the destination after customs clearance. M, when a revised notice was issued by the first respondent on the same date i.
Kerala Commercial Taxes
That apart, on going through the merits involved, the reason for detention as given by the detaining authority in Ext. The petitioner, who is a dealer in food stuffs on the rolls of the second respondent, brought some goods, particularly 'Oats' and 'Choco flakes' covered by Ext.
There is no denial of the factual position as to the physical verification of the container, which was lying open on the side of the road. This shall be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to proceed with the adjudication proceedings, which shall be finalized in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. P3 series invoices bearing Nos.
KVAT Form 8FA - VAT Forum
P5 notice dated However, this is a matter which requires to be considered by the adjudicating authority during the course of the adjudication proceedings and hence this Court does not intend to express any opinion in this regard. The necessity to have such a torm is well prescribed under Section 46 3 e of the Act.
But on confronting with the factual and legal position, it appears that the petitioner furnished declaration in Form 8FA on There is no averment in the writ petition that the above observation is wrong.
M effecting a detailed calculation as to the actual facts and figures and demanding security to a reduced extent of 8fq. The fact remains that the 'consignor' is in no way connected with filing of Form 8FA declaration as involved in the present case and the duty to give the declaration in the instant case was upon the petitioner.
The items covered by invoice No.