Thyssenkrupp Elevator … vs The Intelligence Inspector And … on 17 July, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 20233 of 2009(Y)



1. THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR (INDIA)PVT.LTD.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR AND ANR.
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :17/07/2009

 O R D E R
                P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
        = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = =
                  W.P.C. No. 20233 OF 2009

        = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = =

             Dated this the 17th day of July 2009.


                         JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioner is that, the goods

transported by the petitioner in the Vehicle bearing No. KL-41-

924, have been illegally detained by the respondent from

10.07.2009, leading to Ext. P1 notice under Section 47(2) of the

KVAT Act, asking to furnish security to the tune of Rs.1,48,365/-.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the

incriminating circumstances pointed out in Ext.P1 are quite

wrong and unfounded and the goods were accompanied by a

‘Delivery Chalan’, which contains all the details and there is

absolutely no rhyme or reason for insisting for a ‘Delivery Note’.

It is further pointed out that, the stipulation made by the

respondent as to the absence of proof to establish the existence

of a branch at Trivandrum so as to sustain the stock transfer is

stated as dropped.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who

submits that as per Rule 58 (18A) of the Rules, ‘Delivery Note’ is

W.P.C. No. 20233 OF 2009

2

a mandatory requirement for transportation of the goods beyond

25Km. In the instant case, since the goods were transported

from Thrissur to Trivandrum, the ‘Delivery Note’ is an essential

document. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,

the petitioner shall produce the ‘Delivery Note’ before the

respondent tomorrow itself.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner

is directed to produce the ‘Delivery Note’ before the respondent

tomorrow itself and the respondent is directed to verify the same

and on satisfying the same, the goods as well as the vehicle

detained pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be released forthwith, on

condition that the petitioner executes a ‘self bond’ for the value

shown in Ext.P1. This will be without prejudice to the right of

the respondent to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which

shall be finalized within 2 months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE

kkms/