IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 WA.No. 889 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36397/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------ MOHIYUDEEN .A.P,PROPRIETOR, ELECTRON COMPUTER & E-SECURITY,MANIKOTH PO, KANHANGAD, KASARAGODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,SQUAD NO.IV, KANHANGAD,KASARAGODE DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,(TAXES DEPARTMENT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. RESPONDENT: 4. SRI.T.O.SEBASTIAN, THADATHIL HOUSE, KANHANGAD. (ADDL. RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.8.10.2010 IN I.A. NO.796/2010.) G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.889 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that the department rightly released the goods to the driver of the vehicle who furnished security demanded by the department while detaining the goods. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. A consignment of computer, UPS, accessories etc. valuing Rs.1,30,000/- while under transport in an autorickshaw was detained by the first respondent for the reason that goods were not accompanied by documents prescribed under the KVAT Act and Rules. Since security was not immediately furnished in terms of notice issued by the first respondent by the autorickshaw driver, the vehicle was kept in the Police Station. This happened on 28.2.2008. On 1.3.2008 the appellant approached the first respondent for release of goods without furnishing any security for the reason that there is no attempt of W.A. 889/2010 2 evasion of tax. However, since first respondent was not convinced, he did not release the goods. Thereafter on 8.3.3008 the driver of the autorickshaw furnished security and got the goods released. According to the appellant, the goods belong to him and the autorickshaw driver could have claimed only the autorickshaw and, therefore, goods should not have been released to him. We do not think the appellant's stand is tenable because the department is bound to hand over the goods to the person from whose possession it is taken over irrespective of whether the carrier or the person who had possession at the time of seizure was the owner of the goods or not. If there is misappropriation of the goods by the driver after release from the department, appellant's remedy is against the driver and not against the department. Even though appellant approached the department on 1.3.2008 while the goods were in custody, he did not request for unloading of the goods and release of the vehicle to the autorickshaw driver without the goods. On the other hand, he tried to get the goods released without furnishing security which was unsuccessful. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the departmental officers releasing the goods with the vehicle to the driver W.A. 889/2010 3 from whose custody the vehicle was taken possession with the goods. In our view, the learned Single Judge rightly left open appellant's claim against the driver of the autorickshaw. Writ Appeal is disposed of with the above observation. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms