High Court Kerala High Court

P.H.Hameed vs The Intelligence Inspector And … on 31 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
P.H.Hameed vs The Intelligence Inspector And … on 31 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 21588 of 2009(P)



1. P.H.HAMEED
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR AND OTHERS
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :31/07/2009

 O R D E R
                       P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

                        -----------------------------------------

                           WP(C)NO. 21588 OF 2009

                         --------------------------------------

                  DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF JULY 2009




                                      JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the

interception of the vehicle as well as the goods as per Ext.P1 notice

issued under Section 47(2) of the Act pointing out the discrepancies,

particularly that the invoice issued is in form No.8 and hence doubting

evasion of tax, demanding to furnish security deposit to the extent as

specified therein. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner is a ‘regular tax payer’ and that there is no evasion of tax

at all and the goods are being transported with valid documents

contemplated under Sec.46(3) of the Act. The learned Govt.Pleader

submits that as per Rule 58(10), the goods ought to have been

accompanied with required form (From 8B); the consignee being an

WP(C)NO. 21588 OF 2009
2

end-customer, whereas the invoice accompanied was only in form 8.

This being the position, no blame can be put on the intercepting officer

who issued Ext.P1.

Considering the facts and circumstances, especially when goods

as well as vehicle continue to be detained, thereby will a direction to

the 1st respondent to release the goods and the vehicle, on a condition

that the petitioner shall pay 50% of the amount shown in Ext.P1 and

furnish a ‘personal bond’ for the balance amount. This will be without

prejudice to the right of the 1st respondent to pursue adjudication

proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1; which shall be finalised as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 months from the date of

receipt of copy of this judgment.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON (JUDGE)

pkk