Allowed

Motorala Solutions India Private Limited v. the Intelligence Inspector

Kerala HC22 Sept 2016WP(C)/24787/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought return of bank guarantee after appeal quashed penalty order. Court directed respondents to return guarantee within two months, allowing respondents to seek orders from Tribunal to retain it as security pending disposal of second appeal.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to return bank guarantee within two months of receipt of judgment; respondents may obtain orders from Tribunal to retain guarantee as security pending appeal.

Motorala Solutions India Private Limited Vs the… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/31ST BHADRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 24787 of 2016 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, FORMERLY MOTOROLA INDIA PVT. LTD., BAGMANE TECH PARK, NO.66/1, PLOT NO.5, C.V.RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 093, KARNATAKA STATE, REPRESENTED BY MR.K.CHANDRA SHEKAR - AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH JERARD SAMSON RODRIGUES SRI.ROVIN RODRIGUES SRI.GANESH.S.PAI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR SQUAD NO.I, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE 673 006.

¶11

2. THE INTERLLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.VII, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM 682 015.

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM - 682 015.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 24787 of 2016 (W)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BANK GUARANTEE NO.5859600008 OF CITI BANK COCHIN, DATED 02/11/2011 FOR RS.16,66,500/- VALID UP TO 18TH OCTOBER, 2016.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PHOYOCOPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER NO.VII/759/2011-12 DATED 11/04/2016, ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER IN KVAT APPEAL NO.2024/2016 DATED 30/06/2016, ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/7/2016 SUBMITTED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶26

=============== W.P. (C) No. 24787 of 2016

¶27

==================

¶28

Dated this, the 22^nd day of September, 2016

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to return the bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner for releasing the goods. It is submitted that though the Intelligence Officer had passed an order imposing penalty on the petitioner, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and by Ext.P3 order in KVATA No.2024/2016, the order of penalty had been set aside. Hence, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application seeking to return the bank guarantee. Since no action was taken in the matter, this writ petition is filed.

¶31

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent inter alia stating that the bank guarantee is for an amount of `16,66,500/-. That apart, the Department intends to prefer a Second Appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.

¶32

Learned Government Pleader submits that an appeal has already been filed before the Tribunal challenging Ext.P3 order.

¶33

Be that as it may, in view of the fact that by Ext.P3 order,

¶34

W.P(C) No.24787/16

¶35

-:2:-

¶36

penalty order has already been set aside, petitioner is entitled to seek for return of the bank guarantee. However, if the bank guarantee is to be retained by the Department, necessary orders will have to be obtained from the Tribunal in this regard.

¶37

In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as under:-

¶38

(i) Respondents shall return the bank guarantee to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

(ii) In the meantime, it shall be open for the respondents to obtain appropriate orders from the Tribunal/Court as to whether the bank guarantee is to be retained or not, as security, till the disposal of the matter pending before the Tribunal.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶42

Rp22/09/2016

¶43

//True Copy//

¶44

P.S to Judge

Motorala Solutions India Private Limited v. the Intelligence Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Motorala Solutions India Private Limited 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

Renjith Vs Federal Bank

Laxmi Vasanth Vs the State of Kerala

Mr. Sony P.Joseph Vs the Authorised Officer

T.Rajagopal Vs City Union Bank Limited

Jolly Lalu Varkey Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

M/S.Indot Color World Vs the Commercial Tax Officer