IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28279 of 2010(H)
1. M/S.HSIL LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAMADAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :15/09/2010
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J
------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 28279 OF 2010
------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of wooden racks transported
from Mangalore to Cochin, and by issuance of Ext.P3 notice by the
second respondent under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax
Act. It is submitted that the goods under transport are wooden display
boards (display stands), which were taken from Cochin to Mangalore in
connection with an Architects’ Meet which was held there on
20.08.2010. The stands were intended for displaying sanitary items
dealt with by the petitioner. It is contended that the goods were
transported on the strength of declaration in Form No. 27 B of the
Kerala General Sales Tax Act and it was transported after declaring the
goods at the boarder check post at Manjeswar. The goods were
detained while taking back, after the exhibition, at Neeleshwar.
2. On a perusal of Ext.P3, it is evident that the reason for
detention is that the Form No. 27 B used was not valid and the materials
displayed were not available, but only the display stands were
transported. Further it is noticed that the price displayed on one of such
stands is Rs.23,400/-. But the materials were not seen declared at any
of the entry check posts.
2
WP(C) No. 28279/2010
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that only the wooden
display stands alone were transported and the sanitary wares for display
were taken from their dealers at Mangalore. It is further contended that
Form No. 27 B declaration which accompanied the transport was also
supported by letter issued by the petitioner mentioning that the goods were
carried only for the purpose of display of items at the Meet conducted at
Mangalore. According to the petitioner, genuineness of transport can be
evaluated from the documents which bears endorsements made by the
boarder check posts.
4. Through Ext.P3, security deposit to the tune of Rs.88,630/-
was demanded. According to the petitioner, the wooden display stands
transported are not having any value worth that mentioned in Ext.P4.
Hence the petitioner is seeking direction to expedite the enquiry and to
finalise the matter. He is also seeking direction for release of the vehicle,
pending finalisation of the enquiry, since there is no proceedings is initiated
against the vehicle.
5. Learned Government Pleader, on the basis of instruction,
submitted that apart from the proceedings initiated under Section 47 (2), no
steps has been taken against vehicle in question. Therefore I am of the
opinion that the vehicle can be released to the petitioner making
arrangements for unloading the display stands. The competent authority
3
WP(C) No. 28279/2010
can be directed to finalise the proceedings after release of the vehicle on
completing enquiry as contemplated under the statute.
6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second
respondent to permit release of the vehicle, on the petitioner making
arrangements for unloading and stocking of the materials carried therein.
The vehicle shall be released without any further delay as and when
approach is made by the petitioner.
7. The competent enquiry officer is directed to conduct the
enquiry and to finalise it, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
dnc