IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 650 of 2010(C) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20627/2010 Dated 06/07/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): WRIT PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------ M/S.ACUMEN MARKETING SOLUTIONS (P)LTD. 36, 3RD CROSS (WEST) 8TH MAIN ROAD, VASSANTH NAGAR,BANGALORE-560 052. A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REPRESENTED BY SRI P.SRINIVASAN, OPERATIONS MANAGER,SOUTH. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST,WALAYAR , PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. *ADDL.R3 & R4 IMPLEADED: R3. M/S. DIGITAL WORLD, ROHINI BUILDING, VELIYANNUR ROAD, THRISSUR - 680 001. R4. M/S.LENOVO INDIA PVT.LTD., FERNS ICON, LEVEL 2, CODDENAKUNDI VILLAGE, MARATHALLY OUTER RING ROAD, P.O. MAATHALLY, K.R. PURAM, HOBLY, BANGALORE - 560 037. (*ADDL.R3 & R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 30/07/2010 IN I.A.NO.346/2010) R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. VINOD CHANDRAN R3 BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT.MEERA V.MENON, SRI.MAHESH V.MENON. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------- R.P. No. 650 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) No. 20627 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This review petition filed by the writ petitioner is based on some new materials brought to light, particularly a 'revised notice' under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act stated as issued on 27.6.2010, that is after issuance of the earlier notice which was produced in the writ petition as Ext.P1. 2. As narrated in Ext.P1, the goods sought to be transported by the petitioner to be delivered to the consignee in the State of Kerala, based on a work order stated as given by the concerned party in Bangalore were intercepted on the way, doubting evasion of tax and demanding Rs.1,77,205/- as security deposit. Pursuant to the interception made, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.20627 of 2010. After considering the facts and circumstances, judgment was passed on 6.7.2010 ordering release of the goods on condition that the petitioner satisfied the demand in Ext.P1 either in the form of 'bank guarantee' or by way of 'cash' or by way of any other mode as prescribed under the relevant provisions of law, without prejudice to the adjudication proceedings to be finalised as specified. 3. It is the case of the review petitioner that, when the concerned departmental authorities were approached by producing the RP No.650/2010 2 above verdict, the petitioner came to know that Ext.P1 notice impugned in WP(C) No.20627 of 2010 issued under Section 47(2) was subsequently revised by the authorities, issuing 'Annexure A1' notice dated 27.6.2010 produced along with the review petition, whereby the respondents got satisfied themselves, on physical verification, that the goods transported were only of the value of Rs.72,000/- and thus doubting evasion of tax only to the extent as specified therein and in turn demanding the revised security deposit of Rs.18,180/-. In the above changed circumstances, the petitioner satisfied the said amount as borne by Annexure A2 on 7.7.2010 itself and took steps to take the delivery of the goods to the consignee. It is stated that, to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, the consignee denied the transaction and refused to accept the goods and in such circumstances there was no other way for the petitioner but to take the goods back to Bangalore. Accordingly when the goods were intended to be taken back, it was not permitted by the respondents stating that the petitioner has to satisfy the entire liability shown in Ext.P1 earlier notice, in view of judgment dated 6.7.2010. This is challenged by the review petitioner, pointing out the circumstances leading to Annexure A1 notice and seeks for immediate interference. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes), with reference to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 RP No.650/2010 3 explained the turn of events. However, the fact remains that a physical verification was conducted, after issuance of Ext.P1 notice impugned in the writ petition, leading to issuance of 'revised notice' as borne by Annexure A1, wherein the security deposit demanded is only to the tune of Rs.18,180/-. The third respondent, who is the consignee, has filed a counter affidavit stating that their name is not liable to be brought in, to sustain the deeds or misdeeds pursued by the petitioner and that the amount deposited by the petitioner as borne by Annexure A2 was not actually remitted by the third respondent, though it is shown as remitted in the name of the third respondent; simultaneously adding that it was so remitted by none other than the petitioner. The materials on record reveal that the value of the goods actually transported by the review petitioner is only to the extent of Rs.72,000/- in turn leading to the alleged evasion of tax demanding security deposit of Rs.18,180/- as shown in Annexure A1. It is also brought to light that the said liability has been satisfied by the petitioner vide Annexure A2 receipt, though the same has been shown as remitted in the name of the consignee. 5. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to take back the goods to the place of origin of the transaction, the security deposit demanded by the respondents vide Annexure A1 having already been satisfied. This will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the RP No.650/2010 4 departmental authorities to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which shall be finalised in accordance with law issuing notice to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that there is no necessity to issue separate notice to the third respondent herein, based on the admitted position as stated by the third respondent that the security deposit has been effected actually by the petitioner and not by the third respondent. The judgment passed by this Court in the writ petition will stand modified to the above extent. The review petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON (JUDGE) vps RP No.650/2010 5 RP No.650/2010 6