Allowed

Nippon Motor Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Inspector

Kerala HC8 Feb 2016WP(C)/4491/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged detention of vehicles on discrepancy in 8F declaration between website and invoice. Court noted website error was transporter's fault and corrected 8F form was uploaded within three hours.

What did the court decide?

Directed 1st respondent to release goods and vehicle on petitioner furnishing a simple bond without surety for the security deposit amount.

Nippon Motor Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs Commercial Tax Inspector — 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

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/19TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 4491 of 2016 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

NIPPON MOTOR CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD., NIPPON TOWERS, N.H.47, HMT JN., KALAMASSERY P.O., KOCHI-683 104, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.BABU MOOPPAN.

¶8

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

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAXES CHECK POST, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 624.

¶11

2. ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE-III, ERNAKULAM-682 015.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY.K.T

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Msd.

¶15

WP(C).No. 4491 of 2016 (J)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶18

P1 : COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE.

¶19

P2 : COPY OF E-MAIL DATED 31-01-2016 RECEIVED FROM M/S.TRANSYSTEM LOGISTICS INTL. PVT. LTD., TOGETHER WITH ITS ATTACHMENT.

¶20

P3 : COPY OF DECLARATION IN FORM 8F DATED 01-02-2016 UPLOADED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶21

P4 : COPY OF E-MAIL DATED 01-02-2016 RECEIVED FROM M/S.TRANSYSTEM LOGISTICS INTL. PVT. LTD.

¶22

P5 : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 01-02-2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

P6 : COPY OF REPLY DATED 01-02-2016.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶30

............................................................. W.P.(C).No.4491 Of 2016

¶31

............................................................. Dated this the 8^th day of February, 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

A consignment of motor vehicles that was being transported at the instance of the petitioner was detained by the respondents. Ext.P5 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.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

(i) On a perusal of Ext.P5 detention notice, it is seen that the objection of the respondents is essentially that in the 8F declaration that was

¶37

-2-

¶38

W.P.(C). No.4491 of 2016

¶39

uploaded in the KVATIS website, the consignee was shown as a party in Calicut whereas in the invoice the petitioner was shown as the purchaser/consignee. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the mistake in the 8F declaration that was uploaded in the KVATIS website occurred at the instance of the transporter, and as soon as the fact was brought to the notice of the petitioner, another 8F declaration to support the consignment in favour of the petitioner was uploaded on the KVATIS website within three hours of the detention. He refers to Ext.P5 Form 8F declaration to support his contention. Taking note of the said submission of counsel for the petitioner and finding that the petitioner is a registered dealer in the State and the invoice that covered the transportation of the goods was in the name of the petitioner and further that the petitioner had subsequently issued Ext.P3 8F declaration to support the said transaction, I direct the 1^st respondent to release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner, on the petitioner furnishing a simple bond without surety for the security deposit amount demanded in Ext.P5.

¶40

(ii) The 1^st respondent shall thereafter transmit the files to the adjudicating authority

¶41

-3-

¶42

W.P.(C). No.4491 of 2016

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶46

mns/8.02.16

Nippon Motor Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nippon Motor Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax 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

Ashok Kumar Vs the Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India

Sanoj V.E Vs Syndicate Bank

Mahesh Vs the Authorised Officer

Anil Kumar Vs Authorised Officer

Abu P.A Vs the Authorized Officer

M/S Offshore Infra Structures Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala