Eltek Sgs, Pvt.Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Inspector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/13TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 6240 of 2015 (D) --------------------------- PETITIONER :

------------------------ ELTEK SGS, PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.362, SECTOR- 37, GURGAON, HARYANA, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUJI KUMAR P.S.

BY ADVS.SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR SRI.N.R.SAJ RESPONDENT :

--------------------------- COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECKPOST, WALAYAR. PIN-672 008 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SUDHEESH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

WP(C).No. 6240 of 2015 (D) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE RETAIL INVOICE DATED 05/10/2013 BEARING NO.452.

EXT P2TRUE COPY OF THE RETAIL INVOICES DATED 5/10/2013 BEARING NO.450.

EXT P3TRUE COPY OF THE RETAIL INVOICES DATED 5/10/2013 BEARING NO.458.

EXT P4TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 47(2) DATED 19/10/2013 PERTAINING TO GOODS COVERED BY EXT P1 INVOICE.

EXT P5TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 47(2) DATED 19/10/2013 PERTAINING TO GOODS COVERED BY EXT P2 & P3 INVOICES.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL ----------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

........................................................ ......................................................... Dated this the 4th day of March, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, is aggrieved by Exts.P4 and P5 notices issued to him, detaining a consignment of electrical goods, that was being transported at the instance of the petitioner, who is a dealer in Haryana, at the Commercial Tax Checkpost, Walayar. 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.

2. Heard Sri.Rajesh Nambiar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sudheesh Kumar, the learned Government Pleader for the respondent.

3. 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:

(i) On a perusal of Exts.P4 and P5 notices, it is seen that the goods under transportation were not accompanied by any of the documents specified under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and Rules, but only by a photo copy of an

invoice, and further, without any document to show that it was being brought for the purposes of a works contract, as stated by the consignor. Under these circumstance, the detention by the respondent cannot be said to be unjustified. I also note that the petitioner is not a registered dealer in the State. Under these circumstances, the consignment can be permitted clearance only subject to payment of the security deposit amount demanded.

ii. Taking note of the plea of financial hardship urged by the petitioner, I direct the respondent to release the goods covered by Exts.P4 and P5 notices to the petitioner on the petitioner paying 40% of the security deposit amount demanded in Exts.P4 and P5, and furnishing a bank guarantee for the balance amounts demanded therein, to the respondents. (iii) 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.

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

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/