Sugumathi vs. Assistant Sales Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 16 July 2020

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1942 WP(C).No.14377 OF 2020 PETITIONER: SUGUMATHI AGED 52 YEARS W/O. TAMIL MANI, PROPRIETOR GREENS AGENCY, NO. 40/7, PAVADI THERU, MANICKANATHAM ROAD, PARAMATHI, NAMAKAKL DISTRICT, 637 207, TAMILNADU, RESIDING AT NO. 116, 3RD PHASE, MAY FLOWER, SAKTHI GARDEN NANJUNDAPURAM ROAD, COIMBATORE SOUTH COIMBATORE, 641036, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT: ASSISTANT SALES TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO. III, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (INTELLIGENCE), KERALA SGST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD 678 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.14377 of 2020 2

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Exts.P5 and P5(a) notice and order of detention respectively, pursuant to which a consignment of goods that was being transported at his instance was detained on the ground that, on verification of the vehicle, it was seen carrying an excess quantity of RBD Palmolein Oil. It is the case of the petitioner in the Writ Petition that the vehicle with the consignment was intercepted and checked at Govindapuram, and on verification it was found to contain excess quantity solely because the vehicle, which commenced its journey from Tamil Nadu, was to unload a certain quantity in Coimbatore, and thereafter, carry the balance quantity into Kerala. However, on account of the difficulties faced in unloading the initial consignment in Coimbatore the vehicle carried the entire quantity into Kerala, and after unloading the portion meant for Kerala was intending to go back to Coimbatore to unload the remaining quantity.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find that it is not in dispute that, at the time of interception the vehicle, it was seen carrying a quantity in excess of what was meant for Kerala. I, therefore, do not find the detention to be unjustified. Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, I direct that if the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount determined in Ext.P5 notice before the respondent, the respondent shall forthwith release the vehicle so as to enable it to continue the journey to Tamil Nadu. The respondent shall thereafter proceed to adjudicate the matter for determining the liability to penalty. It is made clear that all contentions open to the petitioner are left open to be considered at the time of adjudication. The learned Government Pleader shall communicate the gist of these directions to the check post authorities for enabling a release of the vehicle on the conditions stated above. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns/16.7.2020 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT -P1OF TAX INVOICE FOR SUPPLY OF 10170 KGS. OF PALMOLEIN OIL TO VINAYAKAR OIL INDUSTRIES AND DATED 11.07.2020 EXHIBIT P2-OF E-WAY BILL CONCERNING THE CONSIGNMENT TO VINAYAKAR OIL INDUSTRIES AND DATED 11.7.2020 EXHIBIT P3-OF TAX INVOICE FOR SUPPLY OF 10130 KGS. OF PALMOLEIN OIL TO POORNA OILS AND DATED 11.07.2020 EXHIBIT P4OF E-WAY BILL CONCERNING THE CONSIGNMENT TO POORNA OILS AND DATED 11.7.2020 EXHIBIT P5-OF NOTICE NO.VC-III/72/20-21 DATED 12.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SEC.20 OF THE INTEGRATED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 EXHIBIT P5(A)-OF ORDER OF DETENTION NO.VC-III/72/20-21 DATED 12.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6:OF OBJECTION DATED 12.07.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER