IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4831 of 2010(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : ------------------ M/S.SOFTLAND INDIA LTD., INFRA SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES PARK, MENAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REP. BY G.MURALY, MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. MR.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 3RD CIRCLE, PEROORKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. CHIEF PARCEL SUPERVISOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PARCEL OFFICE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.1, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, OPP. MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN R2 BY MR.N.B.SUNIL NATH, STANDING COUNCIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JVT P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.4831 of 2010-D ---------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a company engaged in the trading of hand held computers-ticketing machine. The petitioner despatched 21 boxes of such machine and the same were entrusted with the Railways at Madgaon. Exts.P1 and P2 are the invoices, which show the number of packages as '3' and '18' boxes respectively. The goods were accepted by the Railways and Ext.P3 receipt was issued with the number C 277299. Immediately thereafter the petitioner approached the assessing authority at Thiruvananthapuram and filed Ext.P4 dtd.6.2.2010 showing the number of boxes and also with specific reference to the railway receipt bearing No.277299 dated 5.2.2010. It was nearly four days thereafter, that the goods were intercepted by the third respondent on 10.2.2010 by issuing Ext.P5 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, pointing out some discrepancies with regard to the number noted in the boxes referring to railway receipt No.C 277298, this doubting evasion of W.P(C) No.4831 of 2010-D 2 tax and in turn of demanding security deposit. The case of the petitioner is that even though the petitioner sought to explain the position, in the light of the relevant records issued by the Railways, the same was not accepted by the third respondent and hence is constrained to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition. 2. The learned Government Pleader, with reference to the statement filed, submits that the discrepancies noted by the third respondent are very much obvious from the materials on record and that it has not been properly explained. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P6 letter has been issued by the authorities ie, the Railways, Madgaon stating that altogether '21' packages were booked vide railway receipt No.C 277299, which however was noted erroneously by the staff of the Railways as C 277298 on one carton and hence the discrepancy. The learned counsel also placed reliance on Ext.P7 letter issued by the Railway authorities of the destination at Thiruvananthapuram, in support of the mistake occurred at the hands of the Railways. That apart, a statement has also been filed on behalf of the second respondent/Railways, which reads as follows: W.P(C) No.4831 of 2010-D 3 “It is admitted that the 2nd respondent has issued Exhibit P7 letter. On 9.2.10, 10 boxes of consignment was received by the Trivandrum office through Train No.2432. The balance 11 boxes reached on 11.2.2010. When a mistake committed by the staff at Madgoa was realised, that the Railway mark was mistakenly noted as 277298 instead of 277299, the same was verified by the 2nd respondent from the office of the Chief Parcel Supervisor, Konkan Railway, Madgoa, the 2nd respondent issued Exhibit P7” 3. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there is absolutely no justification in detaining the goods belonging to the petitioner any further. Accordingly, the third respondent is directed to release the goods covered by Ext.P5 on condition that the petitioner executes a 'simple bond' for the amount shown as security deposit thereunder, forthwith. This shall be without prejudice to the right of the concerned authorities of the Sales Tax Department to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if any, which shall be finalised in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab //True Copy//