Kerala High Court
Era Infra Engineering Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer (Works ... on 11 August, 2014
Author: K.Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY,THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/20TH SRAVANA, 1936
WP(C).No. 20547 of 2014 (P)
---------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,
C.P. 3/188, PALAKKUTTIYA, KATTANGAL,
NIT/REC POST, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS STORES OFFICER,
SREEJESH KUMAR.B.
BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN.
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT),
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
WORKS CONTRACT OFFICE,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 006.
2. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,
SQUAD NO.III, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
KOLLAM AT KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN - 690 518.
BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Prv.
W.P.(C).NO.20547/2014 - P:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P.1: TRUE COPY OF THE SUB CONTRACT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO
WITH M/S. UTKAL GALVANIZERS LTD., DTD. 02/04/2014.
EXT.P.2: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY M/S. UTKAL GALVANIZERS
TO K.S.E.B FOR APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT, DTD. 01/08/2012.
EXT.P.3: TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION MADE BY K.S.E.B
INTIMATING THE APPROVAL, DTD. 04/02/2013.
EXT.P.4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO INTIMATE ABOUT THE SUBCONTRACT
DTD. 16/07/2014.
EXT.P.5: TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE ORDER PLACED BY THE PETITIONER
TO M/S. LUMINO INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA, DTD. 07/06/2014.
EXT.P.6: TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.LIL 400 RAISED BY M/S. LUMINO
INDUSTRIES LTD., ON SALE OF GOODS, DTD. 22/07/2014.
EXT.P.6.(a): TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.LIL 401 RAISED BY M/S. LUMINO
INDUSTRIES LTD, ON SALE OF GOODS, DTD. 22/07/2014.
EXT.P.7: TRUE COPY OF THE E-DECLARATION IN FORM 8F RAISED BY THE
PETITIONER, DTD. 30/07/2014 - TRUCK NO.TN 25AJ 2697-
INV. NO.LIL 400.
EXT.P.7.(a): TRUE COPY OF THE E-DECLARATION IN FORM 8F RAISED BY THE
PETITIONER, DTD. 30/07/2014 - TRUCK NO.TN 25 AC 4360-
INV. NO.LIL 401.
EXT.P.8: TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE IN FORM 15, ATTACHED WITH
THE CONSIGNMENT, DTD. 24/07/2014 IN (INV. NO.LIL 400).
EXT.P.8.(a): TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE IN FORM 15, ATTACHED WITH
THE CONSIGNMENT, DTD. 24/07/2014 (INV. NO.LIL 401).
EXT.P.9: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER S.47 (2) DTD. 31/07/14.
EXT.P.10: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DTD. 01/08/2014.
EXT.P.11: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DTD. 01/08/2014.
EXT.P.12: TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED 31/12/2013, DTD. 01/02/2014.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
Prv.
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 20547 of 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated 11th August, 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a works contractor carrying on works within the State at Thiruvananthapuram. Admittedly, the petitioner is a sub-contractor to one Utkal Galvanizers Ltd. The goods were imported and for the purpose of accretion in the works contract. In the invoice, the goods were consigned to the petitioner C/o Utkal Galvanizers Ltd. Necessarily, such address was shown only because goods had to be consigned to the work site which work has been awarded to Utkal Galvanizers Ltd, and has been sub-contracted to Era Infra Engineering Ltd., the petitioner herein. The detention was for two reasons; one for the suspicion that there is a local sale to the Utkal Galvanizers Ltd., and also for the reason WP(C).20547/14 2 that the petitioner has not e-filed their annual return from October, 2013.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner points to Ext.P12 to contend that the second reason is not sustainable since the petitioner has filed the Returns. In any event, that may not be sufficient cause for detaining the goods at the entry check post. With respect to the other objection, when there is interstate works contract and the petitioner admittedly is a sub- contractor of the original awarder, it is doubtful whether there would be any tax liability since the goods is meant for accretion in an interstate works contract.
3. For the reasons aforestated, the demand for security deposit is found to be unsustainable, on a prima facie consideration and the goods and the vehicle shall be released WP(C).20547/14 3 immediately, on production of a certified copy of this judgment along with execution of simple bond without sureties. Adjudication shall be continued and concluded untrammelled by the observations made herein.
Writ petition disposed of.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs //True Copy//