Disposed

M/S. Rajasree Motors (P) Ltd. v. the Commercial Tax Inspector

Kerala HC11 Dec 2015WP(C)/37660/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Kerala High Court quashed notices requiring security for detained goods of a registered dealer. The court held that while detention had legal basis, the goods must be released upon furnishing a simple bond due to the petitioner's registered status under the KVAT Act.

What did the court decide?

Release of detained goods pending adjudication on the petitioner furnishing a simple bond of ₹1,12,020 without sureties.

M/S. Rajasree Motors (P) Ltd. Vs the Commercial Tax… — Customs and Excise | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 37660 of 2015 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

M/S. RAJASREE MOTORS (P) LTD. 2/293 ©, NH-47, KUNDANNOOR JN, MARADU P.O, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER -ACOUNTS, SRI V.N.ANANTHA KRISHNAN

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.A.KUMAR

¶10

SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR

SMTG.MINI(1748)

SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD

RESPONDENT:

THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR – 678 624.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI R.RANJITH

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

APPENDIX IN WPC.37660/2015

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXTS:

¶19

EXT.P1: COPY OF INVOICES BEARING NO.121 DT.18.11.15.

¶20

EXT.P2: COPY OF INVOICE BEARING NO.122 DT.18.11.15.

¶21

EXT.P3: COPY OF TRANSACTION SLIP COVERING INVOICE 121 DT.20.11.15.

¶22

EXT.P4: COPY OF TRANSACTION SLIP COVERING INVOICE 122 DT.20.11.15.

¶23

EXT.P5: COPY OF FORM 16 DT.20.11.15.

¶24

EXT.P6: COPY OF NOTICE DT.1.12.15.

¶25

EXT.P7: COPY OF REPLY DT.7.12.15.

¶26

EXT.P8: COPY OF REVISED NOTICE DT.8.12.15.

¶27

EXT.P9: COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DT.6.12.14.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXTS: NIL

TRUE COPY

PS.TOJUDGE

dsn

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(C.)No.37660 Of 2015

¶35

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

¶36

DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act has approached this Court in this Writ Petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P6 and P7 notices issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, by which the petitioner has been asked to furnish security in lieu of detention of the goods.

¶39

The pleadings and materials on record would show that the petitioner transported a consignment consisting of garments like men's shirt, women shirt, neck tie, neck scarf and leather belts for men and women covered by Exts.P1 and P2 invoices. The vehicle transporting the goods covered by Exts.P1 and P2 was intercepted at the Commercial Check Post at Walayar, which resulted in Ext.P6 notice issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act requiring the petitioner to furnish security deposit of 69,570/- in₹ lieu of detention. Based on the objection raised by the petitioner in Ext.P7, the respondent issued Ext.P8 revised notice under Section 47(2) of the Act demanding a sum of 1.12,020/-in lieu of detention₹

¶40

W.P.(C).No.37660/15

¶41

-2-

¶42

of goods. The reasons stated in Ext.P8 notice for detaining the goods reads thus:

¶43

“A notice U/s.47(2) of the KVAT Act 2003, was issued in Form No.17(A) to the consignee (Notice No.OR 3441/9/15-16 dt.01.12.2015) demanding security deposit of 69570/- as the consignee had not presented bill₹ No.121 dt.18.11.15 was not presented for verification on 01.12.15. In the absence of the said bill, amount and no. of readymade garments, leather belts declared in Form 16 dt.20.11.15 was not matching.

¶44

Now on 8.12.15, M/s Rajasree Motors Pvt.Ltd. Cochin has filed a reply dt.7.12.15 to the previous notice dt.1.12.15 in which they have stated that the amount as well as no. of readymade garments and leather belt are perfectly matching and have filed a copy of bill No.121 dt.18.11.15.

¶45

However, since CST @ higher rate is not seen suffered in the invoice Nos.121 & 122, dt.18.11.2015, and in these circumstances, Notice No.3441/9/15-16 dt.1.12.2015 is now revised as under:

¶46

*Sl.No.*	*Items*	*Quantity*	_Value estimated _	*SD due*
1	Readymadegarments	461 Nos.	₹551758	55180(@10%)
2	Leather Belt	245 Nos	₹196000	₹56840/-
Total	S.D.due	(55180+56840)	=1,12,020/-

¶47

I heard arguments of the learned counsel for the

¶48

petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for

¶49

W.P.(C).No.37660/15 -3-

¶50

the respondent.

¶51

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the entire exercise is a sheer abuse to make out some permise or the other for harassment by a detention and such an approach is unbecoming of a statutory authority. It is also contended that in the first place the rates of CST applied are not the concern of the respondent. The invoice is inclusive of tax and need not necessarily mention the rate applied and is of no relevance insofar as the movement of goods is concerned. The seller is a registered dealer with CST registration. It is also contended that the rates are not separately given and the petitioner is not engaged in resale and it is not the concern of the respondent to enquire all these things which are not material for a detention under Section 47(2) of the Act as the documents relevant for a transport under Section 46(3) of the Act is available.

¶52

After hearing both sides and considering the materials on record, I am unable to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings initiated

¶53

W.P.(C).No.37660/15

¶54

-4-

¶55

against the petitioner under Section 47(2) of the Act is absolutely without any legal basis. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the KVAT Act, I deem it appropriate to order release of the goods in question, on the petitioner furnishing a simple bond for 1,12,020/- without₹ sureties.

¶56

Thereafter, the respondent shall forward the file to the concerned adjudicating authority, who shall finalise the proceedings without further delay, with notice to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶57

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶58

dsn

¶59

True copy

¶60

P.S.to Judge

M/S. Rajasree Motors (P) Ltd. v. the Commercial Tax Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Rajasree Motors (P) Ltd. v. the 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

M.M. Varghese Vs the Chief Election Commissioner

Viju Associates Vs the Union of India

M/S. Madras Cements Ltd. Vs Union of India

Rosamma Abraham Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kottayam

Raju.R Vs District Collector, Alappuzha

Kriztle Bath Vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited