Disposed

M/S.Kalyan Jewellers India Pvt.Ltd. v. the Intelligence Inspector

Kerala HC22 Jan 2016WP(C)/2010/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition by a jeweller challenging the detention of gold ornaments. The court held the detention justified due to discrepancies in delivery note data on the KVATIS website but directed release upon payment of 30% security deposit and furnishing of a bond. Files to be transmitted for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Directing 1st respondent to release goods and vehicle on petitioner paying 30% of demanded security deposit and furnishing a simple bond without sureties for the balance.

M/S.Kalyan Jewellers India Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Intelligence… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2016/2ND MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 2010 of 2016 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

M/S. KALYAN JEWELLERS INDIA PVT. LTD., WARD NO.27, B.NO.55/1, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-680 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER MR.SALEESH KUMAR M.G.

¶8

BY ADVS.SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SQUAD NO.1, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 005.

¶11

2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SQUAD NO.1, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 005.

¶12

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

¶13

THRISSUR-688 001.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LILLY.K.T.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

WP(C).No. 2010 of 2016 (A)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION NOTICE OR NO.504/15-16 DT 16-1-2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶21

P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE STOCK TRANSFER VOUCHER NO.TRHOGJO 6994 DT 15-1-2016.

¶22

P2(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE STOCK TRANSFER VOUCHER NO.TRHOGJO 7005 DT 15-1-2016.

¶23

P2(B) : TRUE COPY OF THE STOCK TRANSFER VOUCHER NO.TRHOGJO 6998 DT 15-1-2016.

¶24

P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE NO.320802/DN/111983/2015 DT 16-1-2016.

¶25

P3(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE NO.320802/DN/111989/2015 DT 16-1-2016.

¶26

P3(B) : TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE NO.320802/DN/111984/2015 DT 16-1-2016.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶33

W.P.(C). No. 2010 of 2016

¶34

===================================================== Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 notice issued to him detaining a consignment of new gold ornaments that was being transported at the instance of the petitioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the insistence of the respondent that the petitioner must pay the security deposit demanded in the detention notice as a condition for release of the goods and vehicle.

¶37

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

¶38

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the

¶39

case as also the submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:

¶40

(i) On a perusal of Ext.P1 notice, it is seen that the objection of the respondent is essentially with regard to the fact that the goods were seen accompanied by online delivery notes in Form -15 and the time of issue of all the three delivery notes was seen as 16.01.2016 at 09.29AM. The respondents therefore suspected a possible evasion of tax including the possibility that the delivery note was not genuine. It

¶41

-2-

¶42

W.P.(C). No. 2010 of 2016

¶43

is also stated that the verification from the KVATIS website indicated that there was no matching records with the delivery note, that was produced. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the similarity in time in the three delivery notes could be on account of a possible system error. The learned Government Pleader on instructions, however, submits that the petitioner had uploaded the delivery notes online and the three delivery notes were uploaded at 9.01 AM, 9.10 AM and 9.49 AM respectively. Taking note of the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader on instructions, I am of the view that the detention on the part of the respondents cannot be said to be unjustified, since there was a discrepancy with the data contained in the delivery note. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner is a registered dealer, and that the transportation was otherwise covered by valid documents as contemplated in KVAT Act, I direct the 1^st respondent to release the goods and the vehicle covered by the detention notice, to the petitioner, on the petitioner paying 30% of the security deposit amount demanded in Ext.P1 and furnishing a simple bond without sureties for the balance security deposit amount demanded in the notice, before the 1^st respondent.

¶44

(ii) The 1^st 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

¶45

-3-

¶46

W.P.(C). No. 2010 of 2016

¶47

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶48

(iii) The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition before the 1^st respondent.

¶49

Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶50

das /22.01.2016

M/S.Kalyan Jewellers India Pvt.Ltd. v. the Intelligence Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Kalyan Jewellers India Pvt.Ltd. v. the Intelligence 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

Unnikrishnan Nair v. Vs Trivandrum Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

M/S. Rainbow Traders Vs the Commercial Tax Officer, Kunnamkulam

Dasan T.D Vs the Authorised Officer

Shammas Jamsheer M.C. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M.P.Poulose Vs State of Kerala

Premalatha R Vs the Commiercial Tax Officer (Wc)