Kerala High Court
Dtdc Courier And Cargo Ltd vs The Intelligence Inspector on 28 October, 2009
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 967 of 2009(I)
1. DTDC COURIER AND CARGO LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.K.CHINNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :28/10/2009
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
-----------------------------------------------
RP NO. 967 OF 2009 IN
WP(C) NO. 23930 OF 2009
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009
O R D E R
Ext. P4 notice issued by the respondent under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, demanding security deposit, suspecting evasion of tax in respect of the goods transported in the vehicle bearing No. KL 7 AJ 5374 on 02.08.2009 was subjected to challenge in the above Writ Petition.
2. After hearing both the sides, the Writ Petition was disposed of, referring to the glaring discrepancies (as noted in paragraph 5 of the judgment) and directing the respondent to release the vehicle as well as the goods, on condition that the petitioner satisfied the requirements as shown in Ext.P4, either in the form of 'Bank Guarantee' or by 'Cash Deposit'; without prejudice to the right of the respondent to pursue the adjudication proceedings, to be finalised within two months.
3. The Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner Company (through a new Counsel) stating that the judgment was passed, as if they were the owners of the goods. It is contended that the petitioner was RP NO.967/2009 2 in WP(C)No.23930/2009 neither the consignee nor the owner of the goods, who had only undertaken to transport the goods belonging to the consignee.
4. Obviously, Ext.P4 notice issued under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act was replied by the petitioner as per Ext.P5 representation. Now, after passing the final verdict, the petitioner has come up with a new case as stated in paragraph 3, 4 and Ground (E) of the Review Petition, that there occurred some mistake at the hands of the employees/staff of the petitioner in handing over the proper documents to have accompanied the respective goods in the concerned vehicles which were being transported from the Railway station at Ernakulam to the destination, in two different vehicles; out of which one was intercepted near Jos junction, leading to issuance of Ext.P4.
5. Obviously, the above case now put forth in the Review Petition does not find a place in Ext.P5 representation preferred by the petitioner in response to Ext.P4 notice issued under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Admittedly, there was no such case in the Writ Petition as well. This being the position, there is absolutely no error apparent on the face of the records, so as to sustain any 'review'.
6. Sri. A.K. Chinnan, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner submits that, the petitioner is more concerned with the vehicle which RP NO.967/2009 3 in WP(C)No.23930/2009 is lying idle; for which huge rent is being paid because of the detention, while the goods actually belong to somebody else. The observation made by this Court, particularly in the opening sentence of paragraph 4 of the judgment that the goods were purchased by the petitioner at the instance of the consignee as per Ext.P1 invoice dated 28.07.2009 and that the goods were entrusted to one M/s. 'Lakshya Cargo' to be taken to Ernakulam by rail, was made on the basis of the specific submission made by the learned counsel, then appearing for the petitioner in the Writ Petition. In any view of the matter, the said submission or the observation is of little significance or consequence, since the decision was not rendered on the basis of the actual ownership of the goods, but was with regard to the sustainability of Ext.P4 notice issued under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Since the entries in the documents which accompanied the goods transported in the vehicle did not tally with the actual facts and figures and there was glaring inconsistency, issuance of Ext.P4 notice doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit can't but be sustained. Inconsistency as above in the documents which actually accompanied the goods has now been admitted by the review petitioner in paragraph 3, 4 and Ground (E) of the Review Petition. Since the admitted fact does not require to be proved, the detention of the vehicle and goods by issuing Ext.P4 stands very much justified and the verdict passed by RP NO.967/2009 4 in WP(C)No.23930/2009 this Court directing to release the vehicle as well as the goods, on condition as specified, does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of records and hence it does not call for any review; particularly in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Meera Bhanja's case reported in AIR 1995 SC 455.
7. However, with regard to the contention made by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that the review petitioner is more anxious to have the vehicle released (which is stated as taken on hire) and that the goods could be retained by the departmental authorities for the time being, the learned Government Pleader submits that if the review petitioner is actually aggrieved in this regard, he could very well pursue appropriate steps before the respondent/concerned departmental authorities.
8. In the above circumstance, the review petition is disposed of reserving the liberty as above and if any proper application is filed in the above regard, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one week from the date of receipt of filing such petition.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc