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


Kerala High Court
Ponnu Foods Products vs State Of Kerala on 6 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 24670 of 2010(G)


1. PONNU FOODS PRODUCTS,AILARA P.O.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO
                       ...       Respondent

2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,

3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT)

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SHARAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :06/08/2010

 O R D E R
                    P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
                   ---------------------------
                      W.P(C) No.24670 of 2010-G
                  ----------------------------
              Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010.

                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved of the detention

of the goods transported by the petitioner through ‘Railways’,

issuing, Ext.P3 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, doubting

evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as

specified therein.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the

reasons shown in Ext.P3 for detention are not correct or sustainable

and that the petitioner, though has offered explanation, as borne by

Ext.P4, it has not been properly considered by the concerned

respondent, who has issued Ext.P5 and the detention still continues,

which made the petitioner to approach this Court seeking for

immediate interference.

3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents submits with reference to the materials on record that,

there is clear violation of relevant Rules, in so far as the requisite

documents contemplated under Section 46(3) did not accompany

W.P(C) No.24670 of 2010-G 2

the transport. Further, there is much difference with regard to the

weight of the commodity transported and also the rate. It was in

the said circumstances, that evasion of tax was doubted demanding

security deposit vide Ext.P3, which is stated as within four walls of

the law and not assailable under any circumstances.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does

not find it necessary to detain the goods any further and the same

shall be released to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner

satisfies 50% of the security deposit shown in Ext.P3, either by way

of ‘Bank Guarantee’ or as ‘cash’ and executes a ‘simple bond’ in

respect of the balance amount. On satisfying the said requirement,

the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This will be

without prejudice to the right of the respondents 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.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE

ab


Leave a Reply

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.154 seconds.