2013 (4) TMI 614 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of consignment of diamonds for exhibition - Section 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 - Held that - 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 no prejudice will be caused to the interest of respondents 1 to 5. The petitioner will deposit Rs.1, 48, 800/- demanded as security and on depositing the same the consignment detained will be released to the petitioner. On such release it will be open to the petitioner to deal with the commodity in the manner as they deem fit. 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 at the premises of whom the exhibition was to conduct.

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention of consignment of diamonds at Thiruvananthapuram Airport.
2. Rejection of reply filed by the 6th respondent.
3. Issuance of notice to furnish security and revise the value of the detained commodity.
4. Lack of opportunity given to the petitioner in the proceedings.
5. Writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the proceedings.
6. Ownership claim over the goods by the 6th respondent.
7. Release of goods to the petitioner subject to adjudication under the KVAT Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a dealer in diamonds from Mumbai, transported a consignment of diamonds for exhibition at the premises of the 6th respondent in Thiruvananthapuram. The consignment was detained by the 4th and 5th respondents upon reaching Thiruvananthapuram Airport, leading to a series of proceedings outlined in the judgment.

2. The 6th respondent filed a reply to the detention notice, which was subsequently rejected. A notice was issued calling for security and informing about the auction of the goods if security was not furnished. Despite representations made, a revised notice was issued, increasing the value of the detained commodity and demanding security.

3. The petitioner, as the owner of the goods, was not made a party in the proceedings and was not given any opportunity to represent their case. Subsequently, a notice proposing to auction the detained commodity was issued, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition challenging the proceedings.

4. During the court proceedings, it was confirmed that the 6th respondent had no ownership or other claim over the goods in question, clearing the way for the release of the goods to the petitioner upon furnishing the demanded security. The court found that releasing the goods to the petitioner would not prejudice the interests of the other respondents.

5. The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to deposit the demanded security amount with the 4th respondent. Upon depositing the security, the detained consignment would be released to the petitioner, allowing them to deal with the commodity as they see fit. Additionally, the competent authority was instructed to conduct adjudication under the KVAT Act with notice to both the petitioner and the 6th respondent once the goods are released.