IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15278 of 2009(D)
1. KUMAROTH SHIPPING AGENCIES,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
2. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR
3. M/S PACHASTEEL ORGANIC LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.SADASIVAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :03/06/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
........................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 15278 OF 2009
.........................................................................
Dated this the 3rd June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
M/s. Panchasteel Organic Ltd., Indore, Madhyapradesh
imported the concerned goods from China, through Cochin Port,
which was being transported by the petitioner being the
Shipping and Clearing Agents of the said concern. While the
goods were transported on 31.05.2009, it is stated that the
petitioner could not collect the requisite ‘transit pass’ from the
facilitation centre at W.Island as the driver had to proceed at
about 4.00 a.m. on the said date. It is stated that necessary
documents could not be procured and the defect could not be
cured at Karukutty Check Post; reportedly for the reason that
the said Check Post has been abolished, under which
circumstances, the petitioner proceeded to Walayar, where the
vehicle was intercepted, leading to Ext. P1 proceedings.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
W.P.(C) No. 15278 OF 2009
2
3. It is pointed out that the petitioner is not a registered
dealer and that the ignorance pleaded from the part of the
petitioner despite the mandatory requirement under Section 48
of the KVAT Act, 2003, cannot be given any weightage at all.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
there is absolutely no intention to evade any tax, particularly in
view of the fact that non-procurement of the transit
pass is not fatal, in view of the fact that the goods were being
transported from Kerala and not brought in from outside.
4. After hearing both the sides , this Court finds it fit and
proper to have the matter disposed of, directing the second
respondent to release the goods to the petitioner on condition
that the petitioner furnishes Bank Guarantee for 50% of the
amount demanded vide Ext. P1 notice and a ‘self bond’ for the
balance amount . On furnishing Bank Guarantee as aforesaid or
on remitting 50% of Ext. P1 liability by way of cash, as the case
may be, and on furnishing the self bond for the balance, the
goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This is
without prejudice to the right of the department to pursue the
W.P.(C) No. 15278 OF 2009
3
adjudication proceedings, which shall be finalised as expeditiously
as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk