Loading...
Responsive image

Jessy Renji vs The Intelligence Inspector on 26 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
Jessy Renji vs The Intelligence Inspector on 26 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28107 of 2008(U)


1. JESSY RENJI, PROPRIETOR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BOBBY JOHN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :26/09/2008

 O R D E R
                        K. M. JOSEPH, J.
                 --------------------------------------
                  W.P.C. NO. 28107 OF 2008 U
                  --------------------------------------
                Dated this the 26th September, 2008

                            JUDGMENT

Case of the petitioner is that by Ext.P2, petitioner placed

purchase order for Surgical Cotton Water Beds Ord. (fifty

numbers) with M/s. G.K. Plastics, Chennai. Ext.P3 is the

Invoice under which the goods came to be transported and the

petitioner came to be faced with Ext.P5 which is a notice under

Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act demanding

Rs.33,750/= as Security Deposit on the ground that on

verification it was found that the product is of very high quality

and the MRP printed on the cover is Rs.2700/= and the value

shown in the Invoice is only Rs.600/=. The goods came to be

intercepted at the Parcel Office.

2. I heard Shri Bobby John, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, who prays that since the goods covered by the

Invoice are not the goods which are the subject matter of the

purchase order, it is to be returned back to the consignor and he

WPC. 28107/08 U 2

prays that it may be returned back to the consignor. I heard the

learned Government Pleader also. I feel that in the facts of this

case, the adjudication itself shall be completed at the earliest.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first

respondent to proceed with the adjudication pursuant to Ext.P5

and complete the same in accordance with law, within a period

of ten days from the date of production of a copy of this

Judgment.

Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE

kbk.

// True Copy //

PS to Judge

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information