Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ABBAS CASHEW COMPANY versus INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ABBAS CASHEW COMPANY v. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR - WP(C) No. 32485 of 2006(P) [2006] RD-KL 3011 (11 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 32485 of 2006(P)

1. ABBAS CASHEW COMPANY,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.V.C.JAMES

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN

Dated :11/12/2006

O R D E R

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE

W.P (C) No. 32485 of 2006

Dated this the 11th day of December 2006



J U D G M E N T

The petitioner prays for release of the goods detained in the check post, containing the cashew kernels, in the vehicle KL-2 S.9091, suspecting evasion or attempt to evade payment of tax. The same was detained as per Ext.P4. Pending further enquiry the petitioner was required to remit Rs. 2,68,688/- being the security deposit, for release of the goods.

2. The defect noticed is that the consignment is supported by the delivery note of M/s. Abbas Cashew Company, was consigned to M/s. Sree Mirra Food Industries (P) Ltd., Maharashtra. However, the tin number of the Maharashtra Dealer shown the in the invoice was 410208-S-523 and CST No. 410208-C-341. According to the authority, the tin number is vague and `11' digit in all the States and which yet to suspicious and genuineness of the consignment. The petitioner contends that the tin number of the consignee as shown in Ext.P2 invoice and Ext.P3 delivery note is actually the registration number under the Maharashtra Sales Tax Act and it is a mistake committed by the Accountant. To support thereof the Certificate of Registration i.e. Ext.P7 is produced. In Ext.P7, the tin number of the WP(C) No. 32485/2006 consignee is stated as 72090018571 instead of 27090018571. According to him, it is only a mistake committed while preparing the seal and it never came to the notice of the petitioner and the consignee.

3. According to the learned Government Pleader on verification of the tin number with the website of the company, the TIN number as shown by the petitioner is not found to be correct. Be that it may, the fact remains that the petitioner is a registered dealer within the State and the consignee is also a registered dealer in the State of Maharashtra. The defect noted is not a serious one. On the totality of the facts, the conditions imposed demands relaxation suitably.

4. Accordingly, there would be a direction to the respondents to release the goods on the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the 50% of the amount as mentioned in Ext.P5, where upon the goods shall be released to him, subject to further enquiries in the matter. Issue copy.

(P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE)

jg


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.