IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15779 of 2008(C)
1. M/S SHASTHA STEELS (P) LTD, NEW
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,
... Respondent
2. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, INTELLIGENCE
For Petitioner :SRI.SOJAN JAMES
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :30/05/2008
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WP.(C) No. 15779 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is an assessee on the rolls of the Assistant
Commissioner Special Circle, Palakkad. According to it, on the basis of an
order from another registered dealer, the petitioner sent one consignment
covered by Ext.P1. It is the further case of the petitioner that time of
commencement of the journey was stated as 15.45 p.m. The vehicle was
taken from Kanjikode and stopped near Chandra Nagar for some repairs of
the vehicle, and therefore the driver could not ply his vehicle at the
prescribed time. The vehicle commenced journey from Chandra Nagar with
a delay of four hours after repair of battery and bulbs. The vehicle was
intercepted in the High Way at about 19.30 hours and issued Ext.P2 notice
under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Petitioner sent
Ext.P2 reply with the bills from the workshop on 22.5.2008. On the next
day, another order was issued by the second respondent rejecting the reply
and directing to furnish the security demanded in the notice (Ext.P4).
Thereafter, petitioner filed a detailed reply Ext.P5. In Ext.P4, which is
issued after referring to Ext.P3 reply, it is stated that the vehicle can be
released only after paying the security deposit demanded in the notice. In
WPC.15779/2008. 2
Ext.P4 it is also stated that the delay, as claimed by the petitioner, is for the
reason that it was caused due to some repair works in the lighting of the
lorry. Ext.P3 is stated to be against the oral version of the driver given at
the time of interception. It is stated that the oral version of the lorry driver
was that he has left the vehicle at the road side near Manappullakara and he
has visited two houses at Chittur. It is also stated that moreover, the slip
produced for proving the repair charges is not signed and without any serial
number and the same is not available with the driver at the time of
interception.
2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Sojan James,
who also relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in Assistant
Commissioner Anti Evasion Commercial Taxes, Bharatpur v. M/s.
Amtek India Limited (6 VST 242). I heard learned Government Pleader
also, who reiterates what is stated in Exts.P3 and P4.
3. I do not think that the petitioner has succeeded in judicial
review to overturn Ext.P4. I feel however that the goods can be directed to
be released on the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for the entire
amount demanded in Ext.P2.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:
WPC.15779/2008. 3
If the petitioner furnishes bank guarantee for the entire amount
demanded in Ext.P2, the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith.
The adjudicating process shall be completed as expeditiously as possible at
any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to rely on the
decision of the Apex Court, which is referred to above.
(K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE)
sb