Dismissed

Viji Thankachan v. Intelligence Inspector and Another

Kerala HC13 Jan 2010WP(C)/213/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition sought release of a vehicle and goods detained with a security deposit demand under the Kerala VAT Act. The court ordered immediate release upon execution of a simple bond, mandating final adjudication within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release detained vehicle and goods upon execution of a simple bond; adjudication proceedings to be finalized within two months.

Viji Thankachan Vs Intelligence Inspector and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 213 of 2010(B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

VIJI THANKACHAN, PROPRIETOR, FASHION EYE STYLES, NO.40/4241, JEWS STREET, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.IV, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM AT EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24.

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶17

¶18

WP(C) No. 213 of 2010 --------------------------------------------Dated, this the 13^th day of January, 2010

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The petitioner is a wholesale distributor of spectacles and spares and is a registered dealer. The goods procured and brought by the petitioner in th vehicle No. AP 37 V/7759 were intercepted by the 1^st respondent leading to issuance of Ext.P3 notice under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, demanding a sum of Rs.35,160/- as security deposit, so as to release the vehicle as well as the goods.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that immediately on receipt of Ext.P3, the petitioner filed the explanation as borne by Ext.P4. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the apprehension expressed in Ext.P3 is not correct or sustainable and that the actual value has been clearly and correctly shown in the relevant records. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the reason for detention of the goods was because of the higher market value obtainable for the goods in question. However, this is a matter which requires to be adjudicated by way of appropriate proceedings.

¶22

In the facts and circumstances, there will be a direction to

¶23

WP(C) No.213/2010

¶24

¶25

release the vehicle and the goods detained as per Ext.P3 forthwith, on condition that the petitioner executes a 'simple bond' to the satisfaction of the 1^st respondent. This will be without prejudice to the right of the 1^st respondent to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which however shall be finalised, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶26

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶27

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶28

dnc

Viji Thankachan v. Intelligence Inspector and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viji Thankachan v. Intelligence Inspector and Another

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

Shaija Nazar Vs the Thrissur District Co-Operative Bank

Aslam Agencies Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M.S.a.Meeran Vs Sales Tax Officer, Kollam

Rani Baby Vs State of Kerala

Jayamon T.P. Vs Authorized Officer & Another

Abdul Kabeer Vs Fast Tract Team No.Iii