Kerala High Court
P.Ramasubbu Aged 51 Years vs Deputy Commissioner on 28 August, 2008
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/22ND PHALGUNA 1934
WP(C).No. 6772 of 2013 (V)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------
P.RAMASUBBU AGED 51 YEARS
PROPERIET, PRT HOTLES, MANORAMA ROAD
MODEL SCHOOL JN THAMPANOOR
THIRUVANANTPAURAM-695 001.
BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
RESPONDENT(S):
------------
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
INTELLIGENCE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 018.
2. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR
SQUAD NO.IV, DPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY
KOCHI-24.
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13-03-2013, ALONG WITH W.P(C).6774/13, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX INW.P(C).6772/13
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 28/8/2008.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 21/11/2011.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 1/3/2013.
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5/3/2013.
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).Nos.6772 & 6774 of 2013
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of March, 2013
JUDGMENT
1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2.Petitioners are engaged in hotel business. They are aggrieved by Ext.P4 notice issued by the second respondent, detaining a consignment of UPVC windows transported in a truck bearing Reg.No.TN 39 BZ 8705. The irregularity mentioned is that as per the certificate of registration, they are not authorised to effect intere-state purchase of the consignment in question.
3. Although it is true that the certificate of registration did not authorise the petitioners to effect purchase of the commodity in question, the case of the petitioners is that the petitioner in W.P(C).6772/13 is constructing a hotel building whereas the petitioner in W.P(C).6774/13 is modifying an existing hotel building and that it is for that purposes, they placed the orders and got the windows manufactured.
WPC.6772/13 & 6774/13 2
4. Prima facie, the documents produced by the petitioners substantiate what is stated in the writ petitions. In any case, the correctness or otherwise of the allegations in the notice of detention and whether there was an attempt to evade tax are matters which are to be enquired into. Pending such adjudication, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the facts disclosed in the writ petitions, I do not think it necessary that the consignment could be kept under detention.
5. Therefore, I dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions:
i. The competent authority shall complete the adjudication in the allegations in accordance with law. ii.Pending such adjudication, the consignment detained by Ext.P4 shall be released to the petitioners on their executing a bond without sureties for the security demanded therein.
WPC.6772/13 & 6774/13 3 iii.At the time of getting the consignment released, the petitioners shall produce the delivery permits before the second respondent and the second respondent shall make an endorsement about the quantity transported on the permit itself.
Petitioners will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for compliance.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC Judge kkb.13/3.