Allowed

M/S. Ambal Traders v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Kerala HC15 Jan 2016WP(C)/1538/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging the detention of a beedi consignment. The court directed the release of goods and vehicle by executing a simple bond without sureties instead of paying the demanded security deposit, to be subsequently adjudicated by the authority.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to release goods upon execution of a simple bond without sureties for the demanded security deposit.

M/S. Ambal Traders Vs the Commercial Tax Officer — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/25TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 1538 of 2016 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

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

¶8

M/S. AMBAL TRADERS, VI/935, BAZAR ROAD, KOCHI - 2, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER K.RAGHUNANDAN

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MATTANCHERRY - 682002.

¶13

2. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO. I, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI - 24.

¶14

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.T. LILLY

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 1538 of 2016 (N)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶20

P1: COPY OF DELIVERY NOTE IN FORM NO. 15 GENERATED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶21

P2: COPY OF NOTICE IN FORM NO.17A ISSUED BY THE R2.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶27

¶28

W.P.(C) No.1538 of 2016

¶29

- - - - Dated this the 15^th day of January 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

A consignment of Beedis, that was being transported at the instance of the petitioner was detained by the respondents. Ext.P2 is the detention notice. In the writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the insistence of the respondents that the petitioner must pay the security deposit demanded in the detention notice as a condition for release of the goods and vehicle.

¶32

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶33

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:

¶34

(i) On a perusal of Ext.P2 notice, it is seen that the objection of the respondents is essentially that the transportation of the goods through rail was not covered by a valid Form 8FA. The rate of tax applicable to the goods was shown as 5%, whereas, it was actually 14.5%. Counsel for the

¶35

W.P.(c).No.1538 of 2016

¶36

: 2 :

¶37

petitioner would submit that the consignment was duly accompanied by an electronic delivery note, which contained all the details, that were necessarily to be contained in a Form 8FA and hence the mere non-furnishing of a Form 8FA could not have been the ground for detention. It is also pointed out that the declaration of the rate of tax was an inadvertent mistake and the petitioner actually collects tax @14.5% at the time of sale, in the state. Taking note of the said submission of counsel for the petitioner, and finding that the petitioner is a registered dealer within the State, I direct the 2^nd respondent to release the goods covered by Ext.P2 detention notice, to the petitioner, on his executing a simple bond without sureties for the security deposit amount demanded in the Ext.P2 notice, before the 2^nd respondent.

¶38

(ii) The 2^nd respondent shall thereafter transmit the files to the adjudicating authority who shall adjudicate the matter and pass orders, after hearing the petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

(iii) The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition before the 2^nd respondent.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶42

sm/

M/S. Ambal Traders v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Ambal Traders v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tharun G. Kumar Vs the District Collector

Abraham Chacko Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Sri.v.M.Tomy Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Somasekharan Nair Vs the Authorized Officer, State Bank of Mysore

M/S. Kancor Ingredients Ltd. Vs the Commercial Tax Inspector

C.K.Rajan Vs the Commercial Tax Officer