Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
JENISHA JEWELS ARTS PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
STATE TAX OFFICER, ENFORCEMENT SQUAD, WALAYAR KERALA STATE GST DEPARTMENT – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the case and appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding maintainability of petition. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observation regarding procedure. (Para 6 , 7) |
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The appellant calls into question the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 685 of
2026, dated 15.01.2026.
2. The grievance projected by the appellant is that, the learned Single Judge has found the writ petition to be not maintainable, holding that Ext.P4 is only a show cause notice under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act , CGST Act, 2017 (‘Act’ for short); and thus, refused interim relief of release of articles, upon furnishing security.
3. Sri. Anil D. Nair, learned Senior counsel, instructed by P. K. Biju – appearing for the appellant, argued that the very assumption of jurisdiction by the 1st respondent – Tax Officer, is illegal because, the article in question was admittedly intercepted by the Officers of the State Excise Department, with a seizure mahazar – dated 18.12.2025, being drawn up; and Ext.P14 then says that “the case” was handed over to the GST Department. He argued that this itself is wrong becau
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
