IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4831 of 2010(D)
1. M/S.SOFTLAND INDIA LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. CHIEF PARCEL SUPERVISOR,
3. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :18/02/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
---------------------------
W.P(C) No.4831 of 2010-D
----------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a company engaged in the trading of hand
held computers-ticketing machine. The petitioner despatched 21
boxes of such machine and the same were entrusted with the
Railways at Madgaon. Exts.P1 and P2 are the invoices, which show
the number of packages as ‘3’ and ’18’ boxes respectively. The
goods were accepted by the Railways and Ext.P3 receipt was issued
with the number C 277299. Immediately thereafter the petitioner
approached the assessing authority at Thiruvananthapuram and
filed Ext.P4 dtd.6.2.2010 showing the number of boxes and also
with specific reference to the railway receipt bearing No.277299
dated 5.2.2010. It was nearly four days thereafter, that the goods
were intercepted by the third respondent on 10.2.2010 by issuing
Ext.P5 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, pointing out
some discrepancies with regard to the number noted in the boxes
referring to railway receipt No.C 277298, this doubting evasion of
W.P(C) No.4831 of 2010-D 2
tax and in turn of demanding security deposit. The case of the
petitioner is that even though the petitioner sought to explain the
position, in the light of the relevant records issued by the Railways,
the same was not accepted by the third respondent and hence is
constrained to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition.
2. The learned Government Pleader, with reference to the
statement filed, submits that the discrepancies noted by the third
respondent are very much obvious from the materials on record and
that it has not been properly explained. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that Ext.P6 letter has been issued by the
authorities ie, the Railways, Madgaon stating that altogether ’21’
packages were booked vide railway receipt No.C 277299, which
however was noted erroneously by the staff of the Railways as C
277298 on one carton and hence the discrepancy. The learned
counsel also placed reliance on Ext.P7 letter issued by the Railway
authorities of the destination at Thiruvananthapuram, in support of
the mistake occurred at the hands of the Railways. That apart, a
statement has also been filed on behalf of the second
respondent/Railways, which reads as follows:
W.P(C) No.4831 of 2010-D 3
“It is admitted that the 2nd respondent has issued Exhibit
P7 letter. On 9.2.10, 10 boxes of consignment was received by
the Trivandrum office through Train No.2432. The balance 11
boxes reached on 11.2.2010.
When a mistake committed by the staff at Madgoa was
realised, that the Railway mark was mistakenly noted as 277298
instead of 277299, the same was verified by the 2nd respondent
from the office of the Chief Parcel Supervisor, Konkan Railway,
Madgoa, the 2nd respondent issued Exhibit P7″
3. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds
that there is absolutely no justification in detaining the goods
belonging to the petitioner any further. Accordingly, the third
respondent is directed to release the goods covered by Ext.P5 on
condition that the petitioner executes a ‘simple bond’ for the
amount shown as security deposit thereunder, forthwith. This shall
be without prejudice to the right of the concerned authorities of the
Sales Tax Department to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if
any, which shall be finalised 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 as above.
Sd/-
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
ab //True Copy//