Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
M/S.Jai Hind Traders vs Commercial Tax Inspector (Wc) on 3 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 23982 of 2010(W)


1. M/S.JAI HIND TRADERS, 29/621,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR (WC),
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :03/08/2010

 O R D E R
                 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
                     --------------------------------------------
                     WP(C) NO. 23982 OF 2010
                     --------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is before this Court challenging the detention of the

goods transported in the vehicle bearing No. TN 30 AA 6744, which was

intercepted on the way, by issuing Ext.P6 notice under Section 47(2) of

the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding

security deposit to the extent as specified therein.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the defect pointed out in

Ext.P6 is rather ‘technical’ and that the same does not want any detention

of further proceedings. It was only an omission on the part of the parties

concerned in not showing the ‘time’ in Ext.P2 delivery note. The goods

were actually procured from Palakkad and the same was being taken to

Neyyattinkara; after reaching Ernakulam, in the very same vehicle. In spite

of explaining the position, the respondent has not paid any heed to the

same and the detention still continues, which made the petitioner to

approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent, with reference to the materials on record, submits that the

factum of omission noted in Ext.P2 delivery note is rather conceded. It is

also brought on record that, inspite of the fact that no time was mentioned

2
WP(C) No. 23982/2010

in the delivery note, it was subsequently as 21.45 hrs., whereas the

detention was at 8.05 a.m. on the same day; which reveals the fact that the

correction was done by none other than the driver, submits the learned

Government Pleader.

4. This Court does not intend to express anything on the merits

and the matter requires to be adjudicated in accordance with law. But for

this reason, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the vehicle or the

goods; which shall be released to the petitioner forthwith, on satisfying 50%

of the security deposit demanded in Ext.P6, either in the form of ‘Cash’ or

in the form of ‘Bank Guarantee’ and executes a ‘simple bond’ for the

balance amount. This will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of

the respondent to finalise the adjudication proceedings, which shall be

completed in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any

rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc


Leave a Reply

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

102 queries in 0.176 seconds.