Dismissed

Smt.Vijila v. Inspecting Asst. Commissioner.

Kerala HC10 Dec 2014WP(C)/28777/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging Section 30E of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The Court upheld the provision as valid, relying on previous judgments that upheld identical provisions in the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and found that the defects in the earlier section had been remedied.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the validity of Section 30E of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was dismissed.

Smt.Vijila Vs Inspecting Asst. Commissioner. — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 28777 of 2004 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SMT. VIJILA, D/O. MAHALINGAM, AGED 31 YEARS, "RAMACHANDRA BHAVANAM" KOODIATHOOKY STREET, KULASEKHARAM KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.) SRI.K.M.FIROZ

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM.

¶11

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

¶12

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT) SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM.

¶14

5. THE SALES TAX INSPECTOR, SALES TAX CHECK-POST, ARYANKAVU, PUNALUR KOLLAM.

¶15

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR IT

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C).NO.28777/2004

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.5.2004.

¶21

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE TRANSFER DOCUMENT NO.2 & 3 DT. 30.5.2004.

¶22

EXT.P3: COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE NOS.CTXM 057951 & DCTT 206870 DATED 30.5.2004.

¶23

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE FORM 2B DECLARATION DATED 30.5.2004.

¶24

EXT.P5: COPY OF FORM NO.29 DATED 11.5.2004.

¶25

EXT.P6: COPY OF FORM NO.2 DATED 30.5.2004.

¶26

EXT.P7: COPY OF THE FORM 27-B DT. NIL.

¶27

EXT.P8: COPY OF ORDER NO.A1/2670/04 DATED 1.9.2004.

¶28

EXT.P9: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.16547/04 DATED 3.6.2004.

¶29

EXT.P10: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 15.7.2004.

¶30

EXT.P11: COPY OF THE LETTERS DATED 25.6.2004 & 10.7.2004.

¶31

EXT.P12: COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE DATED 13.8.2004.

¶32

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶33

//TRUE COPY//

¶34

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶35

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶36

W.P.(C).NO.28777 OF 2004 (A) ----------------------------------Dated this the 10^th day of December, 2014

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

The challenge in the present writ petition is against the validity of Section 30E of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the “KGST Act”. On a consideration of the averments in the writ petition as also the submissions of the learned senior counsel Sri.K.B.Mohamed Kutty, I note that by a judgment dated 28.11.2014 in W.P.(C).No.30117/2010, I had rejected a challenge against the validity of Section 49 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the “KVAT Act”, by holding that the provisions of the said Section cannot be struck down as unreasonable, arbitrary or violative of Article 301 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of Section 30E of the KGST Act were introduced in the said enactment pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Syed Sirajudeen v. Intelligence Officer - [(2003) 129 STC 151] , wherein this Court struck down the provisions of Section 30C of the KGST Act on finding that the provision, which enabled the authorities to confiscate vehicles that were involved in smuggling of goods, did

¶39

W.P.(C).No.28777/2004

¶40

¶41

not actually define the word “smuggling”. It was held that the provisions of the Act governing confiscation of the vehicles and goods involved in smuggling were vague and therefore unconstitutional to that extent. Pursuant to the aforementioned judgment of this Court, the State Legislature introduced Section 30E to the KGST Act which provided for confiscation of vehicles that were involved in smuggling of goods. The defects pointed out by this Court in respect of Section 30C of the KGST Act were remedied by the Legislature while enacting Section 30E of the said enactment. The provisions of Section 49 of the KVAT Act are more or less identical to that of Section 30E of the erstwhile KGST Act. I am of the view therefore, that the judgment rendered in W.P.(C).No.30117/2010 upholding the validity of Section 49 of the KVAT Act, would hold good to repel a challenge against the validity of Section 30E of the KGST Act in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition in its challenge against the validity against Section 30E of the KGST fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶42

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that, against Ext.P8 order passed against the petitioner, there are remedies available to be pursued, under the KGST Act.

¶43

W.P.(C).No.28777/2004

¶44

¶45

Taking note of the submission, I make it clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner pursuing his statutory remedies under the KGST Act against Ext.P8 order imposing penalty on the petitioner.

¶46

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶47

prp

Smt.Vijila v. Inspecting Asst. Commissioner.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Vijila v. Inspecting Asst. Commissioner.

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

Smt.P.Amina Nazim Vs Intelligence Officer

Susal a.Chinnan Vs the Officer in Charge

M/S.Gold City Vs the Commercial Tax Officer and Others

B.Krishna Kumar Vs the Jt.Rto, Trippunithura

The Headmaster Vs State of Kerala

Metrolla Steels Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)