IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19829 of 2008(I)
1. ANTONY.V.KUTTY, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF
... Respondent
2. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER,
3. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL
4. M/S.OPHTHO EQUIP INC, 703, "SAMRUDDHI"
5. M/S.TRACKON COURIERS (P)LTD., AHRAM
For Petitioner :SRI.ISSAC M.PERUMPILLIL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :07/07/2008
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 19829 OF 2008 I
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th July, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext.P6. By Ext.P6, noting that the
consignee is not registered under the Kerala Value Added Tax
Act, 2003 and not declared in any border check post of Kerala,
the first respondent estimated the value of goods at
Rs.2,50,000/= and issued Form 17A notice to the transporting
agent, detaining the goods and demanding Security Deposit of
Rs.63,125/=. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
also the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for
petitioner would point out that actually there is no ground for
detention as there was registration as can be seen from Ext.P1.
Learned Government Pleader points out that the tin number is
not stated in the document. Counsel for petitioner submits that
actually the product in question is intracular lens and, therefore,
WPC. 19829/08 I 2
it falls to be taxed under Entry 95 of IIIrd Schedule to the VAT
Act and, at any rate, tax can be levied only at four per cent and
tax calculated at 12.5 per cent in Ext.P6 is illegal. Learned
Government Pleader would point out that actually the product in
question is lens which is implanted by surgical operation in the
body and it is liable to be taxed at 12.5 per cent as it falls under
Entry 14 of the list of commodities taxable at 12. 5 per cent.
Of course, learned counsel for petitioner does not dispute the
fact that it is an item which is used for direct implanting in the
body. I do not think that the petitioner has made out a case for
releasing the goods unconditionally. But, at the same time, if
the petitioner produces Bank Guarantee for the value demanded
in Ext.P6, the goods detained by Ext.P6 shall be released to the
petitioner forthwith. The adjudication process shall at any rate
be completed in accordance with law, within six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I leave open the
WPC. 19829/08 I 3
contentions of the parties. The proceedings shall be completed
untrammelled by anything stated in this Judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
kbk.