Tci Freight vs. Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

The appellant, TCI Freight, a transporter, is appealing a High Court judgment that refused to entertain their writ petition on grounds of an alternate remedy. The appellant's goods were intercepted at a check post, and a notice was issued under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) for eleven detained consignments due to improper documentation. The appellant authorized Fateh Mohammed to receive the goods after paying a penalty, which was paid, and the goods were released. Subsequently, an assessment was completed on TCI Freight. The appellant contended they were not liable for assessment as the consignee was available, identifying Fateh Mohammed as the consignee. The High Court noted the writ petition was filed after a significant delay and the impugned order was appealable.

Held

The Court held that the refusal of the learned Single Judge to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 was reasonable, especially given the significant delay in filing the writ petition and the subsequent appeal. The Court found no merit in the appellant's contention that they, as a transporter, were not liable for assessment. The Court reasoned that Fateh Mohammed, who received the goods on behalf of the transporter after paying the penalty, was likely an employee of TCI Freight, as evidenced by his Electoral Identity Card showing him as a native of a different district. Furthermore, the goods were transported for sale within Kerala, released to the transporter, and not taken out of the state, leading to a presumption of sale within Kerala. Consequently, the transporter was held liable for sales tax. The Court found no reason to interfere with the learned Single Judge's judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in refusing to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of an alternate remedy being available, considering the delay in filing the writ petition and the appeal against the Single Judge's order. Petitioner's arguments: The appellant argued that they are merely a transporter and not liable for assessment, as the consignee (identified as Fateh Mohammed) was available for such assessment. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that Fateh Mohammed was an employee of TCI Freight, not the consignee, and that the goods were released to the transporter and presumed to have been sold within Kerala, making the transporter liable for sales tax. The revenue relied on the fact that the goods were released to the transporter and not taken out of the state.