Dismissed

M/S.Indus Ind Bank Ltd. v. the Intelligence Inspector

Kerala HC4 Sept 2012WP(C)/17810/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner (financier) challenged seizure and penalty orders under KVAT Act Section 47(2), claiming non-hearing. Court held only registered owner or consignment owner is liable to be heard, dismissing the non-hearing plea. Petitioner directed to comply with orders for vehicle release.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; writ party directed to comply with Ext.P2 and P3 orders for release of vehicle.

M/S.Indus Ind Bank Ltd. Vs the Intelligence Inspector — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/13TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 17810 of 2012 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S.INDUS IND BANK LTD (VEHICLE FINANCE DIVISION)RAMA BHAVAN PARUTHELIPALAM, TOLL JUNCTION, EDAPPALLY KOCHI-682024 REP.BY ITS LEGAL EXECUTIVE PARTHEESH S

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN

¶9

SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR

¶12

SQUAD NO III

¶13

O/O.THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(INT)COMMERCIL TAXES, KOLLAM-691013

¶14

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER APPEALS COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM-691013

¶15

M/S.INDIAN MOTORS, DOOR NO 11/280, THRISSUR ROAD, ANGAMALY P.O. ERNAKULAM, 683572, REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI .SHAJI

¶16

K.VISWAMBARAN, S/O.KUMARAN, 'GURUVANDANAM'KOTTAPPURAM PARAVOOR P.O.,KOLLAM-691301

¶17

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.C.17810/12

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT.P1:TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DTD 20/1/2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶23

EXT.P2:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ON 30/3/2012 IMPOSING A PENALTY OF RS.13,13,830/-

¶24

EXT.P3:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 4/7/2012 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-II COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM.

¶25

/true copy/ PA To Judge

¶26

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶27

........................................ W.P.(C).17810/2012

¶28

.............................................. Dated this the 4^th day of September, 2012

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Petitioner claims to be the financier of an Excavator which was purchased by the 4^th respondent. It appears that the equipment was seized by the Sales Tax authorities in terms of the provisions contained in Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act. Proceedings under Section 47(2) resulted in Ext.P2 order of adjudication. That order was confirmed in appeal as per Ext.P3. It is at that stage, petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to release the vehicle and to quash Exts.P2 and P3 for the reason that it has been passed without hearing the petitioner which is an affected party.

¶31

As far as the plea of the petitioner that orders are vitiated for the reason that the petitioner was not heard in the matter is concerned, I am of the view that

¶32

in a proceedings under Section 47(2) of the Act, the registered owner of the vehicle or the owner of the

¶33

W.P.(C).17810/12

¶34

¶35

consignment in question alone are liable to be heard. If that be so, these orders do not call for interference on the ground that the petitioner has not been heard in the matter. In such circumstances, I do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the petitioner.

¶36

Now that so long as Exts.P2 and P3 orders are in force, it is for the parties concerned to comply with the same and to get the vehicle released.

¶37

With the above clarification, the wrrit petition is disposed of.

¶38

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶39

mrcs

¶40

/true copy/ PA To Judge

M/S.Indus Ind Bank Ltd. v. the Intelligence Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Indus Ind Bank Ltd. v. the Intelligence Inspector

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

K. Raveendran Vs Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs P.M.Jacob

Amrutha V.P. Vs Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Elsy Bose Vs the District Collector

Chandrika Balan Vs Tahsildar (R.R),Thrissur

Vasudevan Vs Chief Manager