Kerala High Court
Haritagiri Tiles And Sanitary vs The Commercial Tax Inspector
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937
WP(C).No. 36472 of 2015 (H)
----------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
----------------------
HARITAGIRI TILES AND SANITARY,
AP-VI/74C, VEETTYPADI, MUTTIPPALAM,
PANAYI ROAD, ANNAKAYAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER, T.MOHAMMED,
S/O.ABU T., AGED 42 YEARS.
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENT(S):
------------------------
THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,
COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST,
THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673573.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY K.T.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
PJ
WP(C).No. 36472 of 2015 (H)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 47(2) OF THE KERALA
VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003 DATED 30/11/15
EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 28/11/15 ISSUED BY THE
PETITIONER TO ONE WAYANAD TILES DEPORT, KALEPTTA
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
===========================================
W.P.(C). No. 36472 of 2015
=====================================================
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 notice issued to him detaining a consignment of Vitrified Floor Tiles, that was being transported at the instance of the petitioner. 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.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
3. 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:
(i) On a perusal of Ext.P1 notice, it is seen that the only objection noted by the respondent is that the transportation of the goods was not accompanied by an original of the tax invoice and only a photocopy thereof was seen accompanying the goods. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the documents that were contemplated under the KVAT Act, except -2- W.P.(C). No. 36472 of 2015 the transporter's copy of the invoice, were all accompanying the goods and the objection is only with regard to the photocopy of the invoice having accompanied the transportation of the goods. He produces as Ext.P2 the copy of the invoice, that accompanied the transportation of the goods, which contains all relevant particulars, that were required for the purposes of transporting the goods. It is also stated that the petitioner is a registered dealer in the State. Taking note of the said submission of counsel for the petitioner and finding that the transportation of the goods was otherwise in order, I direct the respondent to release the goods covered by the detention notice, to the petitioner, on his executing a simple bond without sureties for the security deposit amount demanded in the notice, before the respondent.
(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.
(iii) The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition before the respondent.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE das /2.12.15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 36484 of 2015 (I)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
M/S.EURO AGENCIES, 39/3729, RAVIPURAM ROAD, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM - 682 016, REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING PARTNER SMT.RAJASHREE SETHUNATH. BY ADVS.SMT.K.LATHA SMT.M.K.HAJARA RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.
2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECKPOST, WALAYAR - 678 102.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY.K.T THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/ WP(C).No. 36484 of 2015 (I)
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXT. P1 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE RETAIL INVOICE CUM DELIVERY CHALLAN NUMBER 1596000396 DATED 27TH NOVEMBER 2015 ISSUED BY M/S.CANON INDIA P LTD., CHENNAI TO THE PETITIONER. EXT. P2 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 8F DATED 28TH NOVEMBER 2015 AND ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER COMPANY. EXT. P3 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION NOTICE NO.OR/3433/9/15-16 DATED 30.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT U/S 47(2) OF THE KVAT ACT TO THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
mbr/
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
=========================================== W.P.(C). No. 36484 of 2015 ===================================================== Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2015 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 notice issued to him detaining a consignment of Digital Multi-function Printers, that was being transported at the instance of the petitioner. 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.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
3. 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:
(i) On a perusal of Ext.P3 notice, it is seen that the objection of the respondent is essentially with regard to the fact that the classification of the item for the purposes of tax. While the petitioner had declared the item as taxable at the rate of 5%, the respondents were of the view that the item would attract tax at 14.5%. Counsel for the petitioner -2- W.P.(C). No. 36484 of 2015 would submit that the goods are correctly classifiable under the 3rd Schedule and therefore, liable to tax at the rate of 5%. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is a registered dealer and the transaction being an inter-state sale, the tax liability in respect of present transportation was on the seller located outside the State. Taking note of the said submission of counsel for the petitioner, I direct the 2nd respondent to release the goods covered by the detention notice, to the petitioner, on his executing a simple bond without sureties for the security deposit amount demanded in the notice, before the 2nd respondent.
(ii) The 2nd 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.
(iii) The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE das /2.12.15