Kerala High CourtLipi Data Systems Ltd vs The Asst.Commissioner on 20 January, 2015Author:A.K.Jayasankaran NambiarBench:A.K.Jayasankaran NambiarIN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                              PRESENT:

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

                MONDAY,THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/13TH MAGHA, 1936

                                    WP(C).No. 3217 of 2015 (B)
                                        ---------------------------

PETITIONER :
----------------------

            LIPI DATA SYSTEMS LTD.,
            40/6185, 3RD FLOOR, SWAPNIL ENCLAVE
            MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM
            COCHIN 682 031
            REPRESENTED BY K. PREM KUMAR, MANAGER
            LIPI DATA SYSTEMS LTD

            BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.CHERIAN
                          SRI.P.M.GIRIJAVALLABHAN
                          SRI.V.P.SABU
                          SRI.R.RAMAKRISHNAN POTTY

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

        1. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER
            COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, SPECIAL CIRCLE III
            ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 015

        2. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR
            SQUAD NO. VI
            C/O. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER (INT)
            COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE 673 006,
            CAMP AT WALAYAR

        3. THE STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
            DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SECRETARIAT
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

            R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

            THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
            ON 02-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
            FOLLOWING:


Mn

                                                                       ...2/-

WP(C).No. 3217 of 2015 (B)
--------------------------------------

                                                      APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
-------------------------------------

EXT. P1              PHOTOCOPY OF THE KVAT/CST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED
                     BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

EXT. P2              PHOTOCOPY OF THE STF NO. 185540 DATED 20-01-2015 ISSUED BY
                     THE SELLER.

EXT. P3              PHOTOCOPY OF THE FORM N. 8F NO. 32070453704/2014-15/144.

EXT. P4              PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO VE/VI/845/14-15 DATED 25/01/2015
                     ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

EXT. P5              PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
                     SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 28-01-2015

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

                                                                    //TRUE COPY//




                                                                    P.A. TO JUDGE
Mn



                A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
               ........................................................
                         W.P.(C).No.3217 of 2015
               .........................................................
              Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2015


                              J U D G M E N TThe petitioner, who is a registered dealer under theKerala

Value Added Tax Actis aggrieved by Ext.P4 notice issued to him

detaining a consignment of computer systems and peripherals that

was being transported from Himachal Pradesh to Ernakulam at his

instance. In the writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by the

insistence of the respondents that the petitioner must pay the

security deposit demanded in the detention notice as a condition for

release of the goods and vehicle.2. Heard Sri.K.M.Cherian, the learned counsel for the

petitioner  and     Smt.Sobha           Annamma           Eappen,       the learned

Government Pleader for the respondents.3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the

case and the submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ

petition with the following directions:(i) On a perusal of Ext.P4 notice, it is seen that, the objectionW.P.(C).No.3217 of 2015            2of the respondents with regard to the documents that accompanied

the transportation of the goods.     It is found that while there was

an 8F declaration to support the transportation, the delivery note in

the prescribed form as mentioned in theKerala Value Added Tax

Actdid not accompany the goods, which were said to be

transported pursuant to a stock transfer. It is noticed, however,

that there was an STF cum delivery chalan, which is a prescribed

document in the consignors State, and to that extent there was a

document that indicated that the the consignment was being

transported as a stock transfer.(ii) Considering the fact that the petitioner is a registered

dealer in the State, I direct the 2nd respondent to release the goods

and the vehicle on the petitioner furnishing a simple bond without

sureties for the security deposit amount demanded in Ext.P4,

before the 2nd respondent.(iii) 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.W.P.(C).No.3217 of 2015             3(iv) The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment and

a copy of the writ petition before the respondents.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
                                          JUDGE


mns/W.P.(C).No.3217 of 2015    4