Kerala High Court
E.I.Lab Metropolis vs Commercial Tax Inspector on 8 January, 2013
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/18TH POUSHA 1934
WP(C).No. 821 of 2013 (C)
-------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------------
E.I.LAB METROPOLIS,
A UNIT OF SUDHARMA METROPOLIS HEALTH SERVICES PVT.LTD.,
PARAMARA ROAD, NEAR TOWN HALL,
COCHIN - 682 018,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
DR.RAMESH KUMAR.
BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,
COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST,
WALAYAR - 678 623.
BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Kss
WPC.NO.821/2013 C
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DTD. 6/06/2011.
P2: COPY OF THE PURCHASE ORDER DTD. 16/07/2012.
P3: COPY OF THE DELIVERY CHALLAN CUM INVOICE DTD. 14/12/2012.
P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 18/12/2012.
P5: COPY OF THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 31/12/2012.
P6: COPY OF THE FORM 16 DTD. 10/12/2012.
P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.21908/2009 DTD. 4/08/2009.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
ANTONY DOMINIC,J
--------------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 821 of 2013
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of January, 2013
JUDGMENT
Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
2. Ext.P4 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act detaining a consignment of scientific equipments is challenged in this writ petition. Absence of statutory documents required of a dealer under the Act for transporting the goods in question is the irregularity mentioned in Ext.P4. However, the case of the petitioner is that they are not a dealer under the Act, but are only engaged in diagnostic services. It is also pointed out that in a similar situation that another consignment was detained, this Court ordered the goods release as per Ext.P7 judgment.
3. I have gone through Ext.P7 judgment and it is seen from the judgment that the contentions, which are urged W.P.(C).No.821 of 2013 : 2 : by this writ petition also. Taking note of those contentions, this Court issued the following directions:
"In the above facts and circumstances, the respondent is directed to release the vehicle and goods on satisfying the requirement as above, besides executing a 'personal bond' for the requisite amount as shown in Ext.P2. Petitioner will be free to file a statement of objection in response to Ext.P2 and it will be without prejudice to the right and liberties of the departmental authorities to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which however shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Having regard to the similarity of the issue raised, this writ petition is also disposed of directing that the adjudication pursuant to Ext.P4 will be completed expeditiously and that in the meanwhile, goods and the vehicle will be released, subject to the petitioner executing a personal bond for the security demanded in Ext.P4.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ln