Partly allowed

M/S. Milan Design v. Commercial Tax Inspector

Kerala HC7 Jan 2016WP(C)/540/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged detention of plastic bags by respondent, who demanded security deposit for release. Court held detention justified due to lack of ownership certificate and intended non-trade use. Directed release upon payment of 30% deposit and furnishing a simple bond.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to release goods and vehicle upon payment of 30% security deposit and furnishing a simple bond without sureties.

M/S. Milan Design 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

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/17TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 540 of 2016 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

M/S.MILAN DESIGN, HABEEB TOWER, NEAR KALYAN JEWELLERY, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI.KEVIN REX PADIKEN.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR

¶9

SRI.N.R.SAJ

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECKPOST, KUNHIPALLY, P.O.CHOMBALA, KOZHIKODE. PIN-670 022.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY.K.T

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Msd.

¶15

WP(C).No. 540 of 2016 (N)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶18

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.11.2015. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 20.11.2015. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------------------NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶24

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.540 of 2016

¶25

- - - - Dated this the 7^th day of January 2016

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

A consignment of Plastic bags, that was being transported at the instance of the petitioner was detained by the respondent. Ext.P1 is the detention notice. 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.

¶28

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

¶29

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:

¶30

(i) On a perusal of Ext.P1 detention notice, it is seen that the objection of the respondent is essentially that the petitioner was seen as not permitted to trade in the commodity, that was

¶31

W.P.(c).No.540 of 2016

¶32

: 2 :

¶33

being transported. Counsel for the petitioner relies on Ext.P3 certificate of registration to contend that, the item that was transported was in fact an item in which he could trade. It is also pointed out that the transportation of the goods was duly accompanied by all the valid documents that had to accompany the transportation of the goods as per the provisions of the KVAT Act. On a consideration of the said submission of counsel for the petitioner, but finding that the petitioner was indenting to use the plastic bags for his own use and the certificate of ownership in Form 16 did not accompany the transportation, I am of the view that the detention on the part of the respondent cannot be said to be unjustified. Under the said circumstances, I direct the respondent to release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner on the petitioner paying 30% of the security deposit amount in Ext.P1 and furnishing a simple bond without sureties for balance amount demanded in Ext.P1 before the respondent.

¶34

(ii) The 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.

¶35

W.P.(c).No.540 of 2016

¶36

: 3 :

¶37

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

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

sm/

¶40

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

M/S. Milan Design v. Commercial Tax Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Milan Design 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

Reji Joseph Vs the Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram

Rosary Hill Ashram Vs the State of Kerala

M/S.Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs Sub Regional Transport Officer,Punalur

Radhamma Amma Vs the Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd. NO.1909

Vijayan M. Vs the Calicut Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.