Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes v. M/S.Venkiteshwara Hatcheries Pvt.Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/6TH ASWINA, 1937 WA.No. 1733 of 2014 () IN WP(C).6386/2014 ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 6386/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 20-08-2014 APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:

------------------------------------------- 1.

COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, VIKAS BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

2.

STATE OF KERALA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO TAXES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

3.

COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR COMMERCIAL TAX CHEKPOST, KUNHIPALLY P O, CHOMBALA KOZHIKODE DIST., PIN-673 006.

4.

THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR MOBILE SQUAB NO.II, MAHE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES PALAKKAD-678 001.

BY ADV.SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER IN WPC:

-------------------------------------------- M/S.VENKITESHWARA HATCHERIES PVT.LTD DOOR NO. 1/26, KALLEKULANGARA P.O., DHONI ROAD PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 009, REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER MURTUZA ALI ISMAIL MAGDUM.

R BY SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR R BY SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jg-9/10

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.

.................................................................... W.A.No.1733 of 2014 .................................................................... Dated this the 28th day of September, 2015.

J U D G M E N T

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

We have heard the learned senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent.

In our view, the learned single Judge was fully justified in applying the ratio of the decision in U.K.Monu Timbers v. State of Kerala [2012(3) KHC 111], particularly when the matter related to detention of goods as per notices by demanding security deposit based on circular prescribing the floor-rate. We, having gone through the judgment rendered in the light of the various decisions, do not find any ground to interfere with the same. The learned senior Government Pleader pointed out that the impugned judgment contains a declaration that goods cannot be detained only on the question of under valuation. That is not correct. We say so because all that the learned single Judge has stated is that day old chicks

WA1733/14 -2cannot be detained only on the question of under valuation, with reference to the floor-rate fixed by the Commissioner. The direction was that even if there is detention for other defaults, no security deposit can be demanded on the basis of such floor-rate fixed by the Commissioner, since doing so would amount to the detaining officer arrogating the powers of the assessing officer. Subject to what is stated above, this writ appeal is dismissed. (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE) jg-28/9