Allowed

M/S.Wipro Limited v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Oct 2012WP(C)/2383/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that if goods are despatched in pursuance of a sale, an ownership certificate in Form 16 is not necessary. Petitioners can produce purchase orders to drop further detention proceedings or review penalty orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to produce purchase orders; if the order covers the consignment, further action shall be dropped or penalty orders re-examined within 6 weeks.

M/S.Wipro Limited Vs the State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/13TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 2383 of 2007 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S.WIPRO LIMITED, N.A 28 THATTANCHAVADY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PONDICHERRY- 605 009, REPRESENTED BY ITS OPERATIONS MANAGER- KERALA MR.BHASURANGAN .K.

¶8

BY SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.MITHUN MARKOS.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶11

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM.

¶12

3. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, VELANTHAVALAM.

¶13

4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT.), K V A T SPECIAL CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

5. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., S I B BUILDING, MARKET ROAD, KOCHI.

¶15

R1 TO R4 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SOJAN JAMES, R5 BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-10-2012, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 31777/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Prv.

¶18

W.P.(C).NO.2383/2007-H:

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P.1:	COPY OF THE PURCHASE ORDER DTD. 30/11/2006 FROM SOUTH INDIAN BANK TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P.2:	COPY OF THE WAY BILL DTD. 29/12/06 OF BLUE DART EXPORTS.
EXT.P.3:	COPY OF THE INVOICE DTD. 29/12/06.
EXT.P.4:	COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD 16/01/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.3. DETAINING GOODS.
EXT.P.5:	COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 17/01/2007 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.3.
EXT.P.6:	COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.50/2006 DTD. 18/12/2006 ISSUED BY THE R.2.
EXT.P.7:	COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.51/2006 DTD. 19/12/06 ISSUED BY THE R.2.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(C) Nos.2383/07,4624/07,31777/07 & 13428/07

¶29

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

¶30

Dated this the 5^th day of October, 2012

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

In all these cases what is under challenge are notices of detention issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act and the irregularity mentioned in all these notices is the absence of ownership certificate in Form 16. Interim orders have been passed by this Court and the consignments have been released on execution of bond without sureties.

¶33

The case of the petitioners is that computer systems were sold to the consignee and were accordingly despatched. It is argued that if the despatch is in pursuance to sale, the ownership certificate in Form 16 need not accompany the consignment.

¶34

It is seen that in the judgment in writ petition(c).No.4160/07, a copy of which is Ext.P18 in writ petition(c).No.13428/07, this court has upheld the contention of the petitioners. On that basis it was directed that if the petitioners therein produce the purchase order issued by the consignee for the goods covered by the detention

¶35

WPC.No. 2383/07 & connected cases

¶36

:2 :

¶37

notice, further proceedings pursuant to the detention notice shall be dropped.

¶38

Therefore the issue canvassed in this writ petition is fully covered by that judgment. In the light of the said judgment, these writ petitions are disposed of clarifying that the petitioners in these cases will be free to produce the purchase order issued by the consignee before the Officer concerned, in which event the officer shall examine the same and if the purchase order covers the consignment in question, further action shall be dropped.

¶39

In so far as writ petition(c).No.13428/07 is concerned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was adjudicated and security was converted into penalty. It is the penalty order which is challenged in the writ petition.

¶40

Since in other similar cases, the benefit of Ext.P18 judgment is ordered to be given, it is also directed that irrespective of the penalty order that is already passed, it will be open to the petitioner herein to produce the purchase order before the competent authority, who shall re-examine the matter in the light of the aforesaid observations.

¶41

WPC.No. 2383/07 & connected cases

¶42

:3 :

¶43

It is also directed that once the purchase orders are produced

¶44

as directed above, the matters shall be finalised at any rate within 6

¶45

weeks thereafter.

¶46

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶47

vi/

¶48

WPC.No. 2383/07 & connected cases

¶49

:4 :

M/S.Wipro Limited v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Wipro Limited v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ananda Krishnan Vs E. Noorudeen Kunju

Jai Hind Oil Mills Vs Canara Bank, Mattanchery

V. Usman Vs Intelligence Officer, Palakkad

Shaleela Vs Manager, Bank of Maharashtra

The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

T.K.Sreedharan Vs State Bank of India