Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

M/S Malabar Commercial Plaza P Ltd vs The Intelligence Inspector on 4 January, 2017

Author: K. Vinod Chandran

Bench: K.Vinod Chandran

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT:

           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/19TH MAGHA, 1938

                   WP(C).No. 4269 of 2017 (G)
                   ---------------------------


PETITIONER(S):
-------------

            M/S MALABAR COMMERCIAL PLAZA P LTD.,
            KOZHIKODE,
            REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.K.P.VEERANKUTTY



            BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.ABDUL AZEES
                   SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
                   SMT.T.ARCHANA

RESPONDENT(S):
--------------

       1.   THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,
             SQUAD NO.VI, COMMERCIAL TAXES,
             ERNAKULAM-682 024

       2.   THE COMMISSIONER,
             COMMERCIAL TAXES,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001



        BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN

       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
       ON 08-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
       FOLLOWING:

SKG

WP(C).No. 4269 of 2017 (G)
---------------------------

                            APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------

EXHIBIT P1.    THE TRUE COPY OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LICENSE
               ISSUED BY THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION

EXHIBIT P2.    TRUE COPY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE
               ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
               CLIMATE CHANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND THE
               PROCEEDINGS OF THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT
               ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY.

EXHIBIT P3.    THE TRUE COPY OF PURCHASE ORDER GIVEN TO M/S
               SCHINDLER (CHINA) ELEVATOR CO LTD, SHANGHAI, CHINA

EXHIBIT P4.    THE TRUE COPY OF BILL OF ENTRY VIDE
               NO.8326474/26/01/2017/N/H

EXHIBIT P5.    THE TRUE COPY OF INVOICE NO.20170008 DATED
               JANUARY 4,2017, ISSUED BY M/S SCHINDLER (CHINA)
               ELEVATOR CO LTD , SHANGHAI, CHINA.

EXHIBIT P6.    THE TRUE COPY OF FORM 16 CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
               NO.1566721173/2016 DATED 04.02.2017.

EXHIBIT P7.    THE TRUE COPY OF FORM 8 F A DECLARATIONS

EXHIBIT P8.    THE TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.OR/VI/718/16-17 DATED
               04.02.2017, ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,
               SQUAD NO.VI, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM

EXHIBIT P9.    THE TRUE COPY OF REVISED NOTICE
               NO.OR/VI/718/16-17 DATED 04.02.2017 ISSUED BY THE
               INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.VI, COMMERCIAL
               TAXES, ERNAKULAM

EXHIBIT P10.   THE TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 06.02.2017 FILED BY
               THE PETITIONER


RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------                NIL

                                  /TRUE COPY/




                                  P.S. TO JUDGE

SKG



                  K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
               =====================
                 W.P.(C)No.4269 of 2017 - G
            =========================
           Dated this the 08th day of February, 2017

                       J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved with the detention, which was initially made as per Ext.P8 and then revised notice issued at Ext.P9. The petitioner was transporting 16 escalators in 16 vehicles, which is to be installed in a shopping mall intended to be constructed by the petitioner. The petitioner had cleared the goods from the Cochin Port, the same having been imported from China and was transporting it to Thiruvananthapuram, when the goods were detained.

2. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that there is a works contract involved insofar as installation by a sister concern, which though a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, has not 2 W.P.(C)No.4269/2017 disclosed the particular work. The second contention is that Form 16 is incomplete.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the contention of the sister concern is not revealed from Ext.P9. The contention taken up in Ext.P9 is that the petitioner is a works contractor. However, the petitioner's contention is that the petitioner is the owner of the mall and the goods are transported for installation in the mall. In any event, these are all issues, which could be taken up before the adjudicating authority.

4. In such circumstance, considering the fact that the petitioner is not a registered dealer, the goods shall be released on the petitioner and the Managing Director of the petitioner, in his personal capacity, executing a simple bond without sureties for the security deposit demanded. The adjudication proceedings shall be completed untrammelled by 3 W.P.(C)No.4269/2017 any observations made herein.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB/08/02/2017 // true copy // P.A to Judge