Maintainability of petition — The petitioners challenged the impugned order saying that the 1st respondent failed to consider the documents placed on record by the petitioners before the assessment order impugned in the writ petition is made. The respondents objected to the maintainability of writ petition primarily on the ground that the explanation now offered by the petitioner cannot be treated as axiomatic and proceed to consider the infirmity in the finding recorded by the 1st respondent. The writ petition disposed of by relegating the petitioner to work out the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act directing the respondents not to encash the bank guarantee for a period of 90 days. — Hyundai Construction Equipment India Pvt Ltd. Vs. The State Tax Officer, Squad No. Iii, State Gst Department, Kasargod, The Commissioner of State GST Tax Towers, Killippalam, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram, State of Kerala Represented by Its Secretary to Government, Thiruvananthapuram And Deutsche Bank, Pune [2019] 15 TAXLOK.COM 022 (Kerala)