Disposed

Trinity Medical Centre v. the Intelligence Inspector

Kerala HC1 Aug 2016WP(C)/22712/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Trinity Medical Centre challenging the detention of microscopes and the demand for tax payment. The Court permitted the release of goods upon depositing 25% of the demanded amount and furnishing a bond, while directing the adjudicating officer to complete the case within two months.

What did the court decide?

Release of goods upon remitting 25% of the assessed tax amount and furnishing a simple bond without sureties for the balance, with adjudication to be completed within two months.

Trinity Medical Centre Vs the Intelligence Inspector — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016/10TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 22712 of 2016 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

TRINITY MEDICAL CENTRE, 15/513-10, STADIUM ROAD, PALAKKAD - 678 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, DR. SUNIL SREEDHAR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1.THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO IV, COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI - 682 024.

¶11

2.THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, NEAR CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD 678 001.

¶12

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.P.PRADEEP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

WP(C).No. 22712 of 2016 (L)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶18

---------- EXHIBIT P1	----- :	-------- COPY OF	CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION.
EXHIBIT P2	:	COPY OF	TRANSACTION SLIP DATED 26-04-2016.
EXHIBIT P2	(A):	COPY OF DATED 25	DELIVERY NOTE NO 30/4139088128 -04-2016.
EXHIBIT P3	:	COPY OF	DELIVERY NOTE DATED 20-06-2016.
EXHIBIT P4	:	COPY OF 1ST RESP	NOTICE DATED 28-06-2016 ISSUED BY THE ONDENT U/S 47(2).
EXHIBIT P5	:	COPY OF	REPLY DATED 29-06-2016.
EXHIBIT P6	:	COPY OF DART.	TRACKING DETAILS RECEIVED FROM M/S.BLUE
EXHIBIT P7	:	COPY OF RECEIVED	CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED 8.7.2016 FROM M/S.CARL ZEISS INDIA PVT. LTD.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEXURE R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE E-SUGAM FORM WITH SL.NO.18124713050 DATED 25.5.2016.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶25

W.P (C) No. 22712 of 2016

¶26

Dated this the 01^st day of August, 2016

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Petitioner had approached this Court challenging Exhibit P4 by which Miscroscope of a particular specification has been detained and the petitioner is called upon to remit Rs.10,51,360/- as a condition for releasing the goods. In Exhibit P4 it is stated as under:

¶29

“The goods and supporting documents were verified at the godown of Blue Dart Express Ltd., South Kalamassery. On verification of the accompanied declaration forwarded by the consignor it is seen that they are Carl zeiss Miscroscope OPMI Lumera-1 (packed in three boxes) after demonstration. But as per accompanied delivery note No.32096/DN/2571/2016 dated 20.06.2016 it was an interstate sale of the dealer. But the dealer has neither issued a sale bill nor collected any tax in this case. Hence it is suspected that the dealer is effecting an interstate sale in the guise of returning the goods after demonstration and thereby attempted to evade tax.”

¶30

Taking into consideration the facts that the goods had

¶31

been detained on account of the aforesaid reason, I do not

¶32

W.P (C) No. 22712 of 2016

¶33

¶34

think that any error has been committed by the officer.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, places reliance upon Exhibits P2 and P2(a) in order to contend that the equipment was brought in only for demonstration purpose. If at all it has been brought for demonstration purpose, the said fact has to be considered by the adjudicating officer in accordance with the statutory requirements. It is not open for this Court to consider the validity of the transport in the present proceedings. A statement is also filed on behalf of the first respondent supporting the stand taken by them.

¶36

Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, I do not think that there is any error in the order of detention. However, taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is a registered dealer it would be appropriate to permit release of the goods on the petitioner depositing 25% of the amount stated in Exhibit P4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as under:

¶37

(i) The goods mentioned in Exhibit P4 shall be released to

¶38

the petitioner on the petitioner remitting 25% of the amount stated in Exhibit P4 and on furnishing simple bond without sureties for the balance amount.

¶39

W.P (C) No. 22712 of 2016

¶40

¶41

(ii) The adjudication shall be completed within a period of

¶42

two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶43

judgment.

¶44

A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶45

DMR/-

Trinity Medical Centre v. the Intelligence Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trinity Medical Centre 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samad T.P Vs State of Kerala

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs Joseph M.Kallivayilil

Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India

R.Jayakumar Vs Branch Manager United Bank of India

T.P. George Vs Shimmy Thomas & Others

Thomas P.Oomen Vs Tahsildar & Others