Dismissed

Firoz v. Commercial Tax Inspector

Kerala HC3 Feb 2012WP(C)/2015/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the detention of consignment declared as vegetables but found to be iron and steel grills by a Commercial Tax Inspector was disposed of. The Bench held that the petitioner had to furnish security and the matter was pending adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to furnish security as demanded in notice to get goods released, subject to adjudication.

Firoz Vs Commercial Tax Inspector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/14TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

WPC.No. 2015 of 2012 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

FIROZ

¶8

S/O.MUHAMMED RAFEEQ, AGED 23 YEARS, SALMATH NAGAR 58-, KARIUMBUKKADI COIMBATHORE-641023.

¶9

MUHAMMED

¶10

S/O.SHAJAHAN, AGED 25 YEARS, NO.10/15 KURINCHI NAGAR, KUNIYAMUTHUR, COIMBATHORE-641008.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR

¶14

COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD-678624.

¶15

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPPEN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C).2015/12

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK BEARING REG.NO.TN 37 BT-5071.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.9-1-2012 AT 9AM U/S.47(2) OF KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX OF 2003 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S.69(1) OF KERLA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶23

/true copy/

¶24

P.A. To Judge

¶25

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶26

....................................................... W.P.(C).2015/2012

¶27

Dated this the 3^rd day of February, 2012

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Consignment of 2500 numbers of Grills along with the vehicle, have been detained by the respondent and Exts.P2 and P3 are the notices issued. A reading of these notices show that, when the vehicle reached the green channel counter of the check post, the commodities under transportation were declared as vegetables and on further verification, it was found that contrary to the declaration made, goods were Grills made by iron and steel and not vegetables. It is on that basis, detention has been ordered.

¶30

Although the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to explain the contradiction by contending that it was on account of a bona fide mistake of the driver, this was happened, still I am not satisfied with the explanation and it is a matter to be proved by the petitioner during the course of adjudication. Therefore at this stage I am not persuaded to think that the detention was unwarranted.

¶31

W.P.(C).2015/12

¶32

¶33

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to furnish security as demanded in Ext.P2 and get the goods released which shall be subject to adjudication.

¶34

ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge

¶35

mrcs

Firoz v. Commercial Tax Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz v. Commercial Tax 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

Sudheesh.S. Vs Sudharam.R.

Joy Thomas and Others Vs State Bank of India and Others

Indu Gopi Vs South Indian Bank Ltd.

Sujatha Kavumkal Vs Satheesan, District Collector, Ksd

M/S. Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. Vs Dipu Varghese

S.Maheen Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises