AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Antony Dominic
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, SRI. C.S. Manu, who entered appearance on behalf of the 6th respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5. Petitioner is a dealer in diamonds based in Mumbai. According to the petitioner, under intimation to the assessing officer at Mumbai, they transported a consignment of diamonds for exhibition at the premises of the 6th respondent. Ext. P1 is the intimation, Exts. P2 and P3 are the airway bills. The consignment reached Thiruvananthapuram Airport and was detained by the 4th and 5th respondents as per Ext. P4.
Since the detention notice was issued to the 6th respondent, they filed a reply and that was rejected by Ext. P6. Suffice it to say that finally Ext. P9 notice was issued calling upon the 6th respondent to furnish security and informing that on failure thereof, the goods will be auctioned. Representations made by them did not yield any result and pursuant to a fresh revaluation that was conducted, Ext. P19 revised notice was issued informing the 6th respondent that the value of the detained commodity has been revised to Rs. 74,40,000/-. They were also called upon to furnish security of Rs. 1,48,800/-.
Being the owner of the goods in question, petitioner represented against these proceedings as they were not made parties and admittedly in none of these proceedings petitioner was given any opportunity. Finally Ext. P28 notice has been issued to the 6th respondent u/s 47(8) of the KVAT Act proposing to auction the detained commodity. It is at that stage petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to challenge the aforesaid proceedings.
Since the main prayer of the petitioner is to release the goods to them subject to adjudication as provided under the KVAT Act, this court enquired with the counsel appearing for the 6th respondent whether they have any claim of ownership or other claim over the goods in question. To that query, counsel confirmed that they are not having any ownership or other claim over the goods in question and that they have no conflict of interest with the petitioner. In such circumstances, as the petitioner admittedly is the consignor of the goods in question, if the goods are released to them on their furnishing security as demanded in Ext. P19, I do not think any prejudice will be caused to the interest of respondents 1 to 5. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:
(1) That the petitioner will deposit Rs. 1,48,800/- (Rupees One lakh forty eight thousand and eight hundred only) demanded in Ext. P19 with the 4th respondent and on depositing the security as above, the consignment detained as per Ext. P4 will be released to the petitioner.
(2) On such release, it will be open to the petitioner to deal with the commodity in the manner as they deem fit.
(3) Once the goods are released, the competent authority will conduct adjudication in terms of Section 47 of the KVAT Act with notice to the petitioner and the 6th respondent.