Disposed

Philips Carbon Black Limited v. the Assistant Commissioner

Kerala HC15 Jan 2010WP(C)/1129/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows the petitioner to release goods and vehicle intercepted under the KVAT Act by the 1st respondent. The Court orders security payment of 50% plus a simple bond for the balance as a condition for release, retaining the 1st respondent's right to pursue adjudication within 2 months without prejudice.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is permitted to release goods and vehicle on payment of fifty percent security and execution of a simple bond for the balance, subject to finalisation of adjudication proceedings within

Philips Carbon Black Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 1129 of 2010(M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LIMITED, KARIMUGAL, BRAHMAPURAM.P.O, COCHIN-682 303, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-FINANCE & ACCOUNTS, SAJEE VARGHESE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALUVA.

¶13

THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, ATHICODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(C) No.1129 of 2010

¶19

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

¶20

Dated this the 15^th day of January , 2010

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The goods transported by the petitioner in the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN47C 2799, allegedly as by way of stock transfer, were intercepted by the first respondent leading to issuance of Ext.P3, stating that the Delivery note did not contain the relevant 'date and seal' and hence demanding security to the extent as prescribed therein which is sought to be intercepted by this Court in this writ petition.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the defect noted by the concerned respondent is rather technical. The learned counsel also submitted that there is no case for the respondents that the goods were being conveyed without the required documents as contemplated under Section 46(3) of the KVAT Act. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents

¶24

-2-

¶25

W.P.(C) No.1129 of 2010

¶26

submits that in so far as the existence of mistake/defect is conceded, there is absolutely no scope for interference and that the first respondent is justified in having issued Ext.P3, suspecting evasion of tax. The learned Government Pleader also makes a reference to Ext.P2 'delivery note', wherein a seal has been affixed as “local movement only”, which ought not to have been there, as the conveyance was not within the State.

¶27

Considering facts and circumstances, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of the rival contentions, but for observing that the goods as well as the vehicle forming the subject matter of Ext.P3 can be released to the petitioner, on condition that the petitioner satisfies fifty percent of the liability as shown in Ext.P3 and executes a 'simple bond' in respect of the balance. On satisfying the requirement as above, the vehicle and the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. However, it is also made clear that, this will be without prejudice to the right

¶28

-3-

¶29

W.P.(C) No.1129 of 2010

¶30

of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which however shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

¶31

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶32

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON (JUDGE)

¶33

Philips Carbon Black Limited v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Philips Carbon Black Limited v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Viji Thankachan Vs Intelligence Inspector and Another

Rani Baby Vs State of Kerala

Jayamon T.P. Vs Authorized Officer & Another

M.Abdul Nazar Vs the Regional Transport Officer,Kozhikode

Anil Kumar Vs District Collector, Kollam

A.a.Karim Vs State of Kerala