IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32908 of 2010(K) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MR.VIJAY BHUTDA,PROPRIETOR, M/S.VIJAY BHUTDA,NO.12/8,SAPPHIRE, SHALIMAR ENCLAVE,E/3,ARERA COLONY, BHOPAL-462 016,MADHYA PRADESH. BY ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,SQUAD NO.IV COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-682 024. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.IV COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-682 024. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX FACILITATION CENTRE, W.ISLAND-682 003. 4. SRI.P.K.RAVEENDRAN, LICENSED CUSTOM HOUSE AGENT, CC.24/436,CHELUR BUILDING,MARAR ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003. R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 32908 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Exts.P6 and P6(a) notices issued under section 47(2) of the KVAT Act. According to the petitioner, he had imported two containers of White Cement of 1120 bags to Cochin Sea Port from Pakistan. The goods were intended to be sold in High Sea Sales. Since there occurred some delay in finalising the documents the High Sea Sales proposed were not materialised. Before the vessel reached Cochin Port, the petitioner made enquiries with the 3rd respondent regarding possibility of inter-state sale, through the 4th respondent who is the clearing agent. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent had raised Ext.P4, a draft of the 'tax invoice' with respect to one of the containers and showed the same to the 3rd respondent in order to ascertain possibility of effecting transportation inter-state. But the 1st respondent, without any authority, had issued Exts.P6 and P6(a) notices ordering detention of the containers alleging that the goods are being transported on the basis of Exts.P2 to P4 documents. WP(C).32908/2010 2 The petitioner was required to furnish security deposit. 2. In fact the petitioner has not made any sale of the goods and he had cancelled Ext.P4 invoice. Further the petitioner was intending to transport goods in question to Bhopal, its place of business. Contention of the petitioner is that Exts.P6 and P6(a) notices were issued without any authority or jurisdiction. It is contended that the 1st respondent is entitled to invoke any proceedings under section 47(2) only if the goods were transported. In the case at hand the goods remained within the customs barriers of Cochin Port and the petitioner had never transported nor attempted to transport the goods in question from the port. 3. When the above writ petition came up for admission, this court had issued an interim order on 29.10.2010, making it clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to produce documents pertaining to transport of goods to its place of business at Bhopal and the respondent was directed to take a decision in permitting transport of goods to the petitioner's place of business at Bhopal. On the basis of such direction the 1st respondent had taken a decision to permit transportation of goods by releasing the detention ordered under Exts.P6 and P6(a) notices. The WP(C).32908/2010 3 transportation of goods through coastal shipping was permitted on the basis of the documents produced by the petitioner. It is evident from Ext.P18 document that the goods in question were already transported to the place of business of the petitioner at Bhopal. 4. Under the above circumstances the proceedings initiated under Exts. P6 and P6(a) has become infructuous and that no further relief is required in the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had raised strenuous contention pressing for imposition of compensatory cost against the 1st respondent, on the premise that due to his illegal actions the petitioner had suffered heavy damages by way of demurrage paid to the customs and port authorities. However, I took notice that Exts.P6 and P6(a) notices were issued on the basis of Ext.P4 invoice, eventhough the same was subsequently cancelled by the petitioner. I find merit in the contention of the petitioner that jurisdiction of the 1st respondent for initiating proceedings under section 47 can be invoked only in case the petitioner is effecting transport. It is true that goods in question were remaining within the customs barriers and in such case the proceedings under section 47(2) was not at all warranted. WP(C).32908/2010 4 However, I am of the opinion that there is no strict proof produced in order to show that there occurred any delay in transport of the materials to Bhopal due to any inaction on the part of the respondents. Hence I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case warranting imposition of compensatory cost. Accordingly the prayer of the petitioner in this regard is declined. In the result the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).32908/2010 5