The petitioner is a dealer of 'Bullet Enfield Motorcycles' doing business under the name and style as M/s.S.S.Motors. The goods transported by the petitioner came to be detained at Kunhipalli Check Post and Walayar Check Post, issuing Exts.P7, P7 (a) and P7(b) notices alleging that the petitioner is a defaulter and as such, the goods could be released only after getting clearance from the assessing authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason to detain the vehicles with the goods.
2. The prayer is in the following terms:
“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to release the Lorry bearing Registration No.KL-41A-942 with goods (9 numbers of Enfield Bulled Motorcycles) detained at the Kunhipalli Check Post and three consignments of spare parts transporting through Gati Parcel service detained at Valayar Check Post on receiving the stay order passed by the 4th respondent and on complying the conditions of the order;
ii) To issue a direction permitting the petitioner to execute the bond as stated in Exhibit-P4 by enlarging time.”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the assessment with respect to the year 2012-13 was finalised by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P1 order dated 24.05.2013, being aggrieved of which, Ext.P3 memorandum of appeal was filed before the 4th respondent. After considering the I.A. for stay Ext.P4 order was passed on 22.10.2013 enabling the petitioner to enjoy the benefit of stay during pendency of the appeal, subject to satisfaction of 30% of the disputed liability. It is stated that the petitioner has satisfied the condition and effected the payment, as borne by Ext.P5 series receipts. It is also stated that the petitioner has executed the necessary 'bond' for the balance amount, vide Ext.P6 dated 26.11.2013. The detention is on the basis of a wrong understanding that the petitioner has not satisfied the condition imposed.
4. The learned Government Pleader submits on instructions that satisfaction of the amount covered by Exts.P5, P5(a) and P5(b) is only to an extent of Rs.4,61,650/- and that Ext.P5(c) remittance was made by the petitioner prior to passing of Ext.P4 order dated 22.10.2013. But this Court does not find any relevance to the said course. The petitioner has satisfied 30% of the total liability and executed a bond as per Ext.P6. This being the position, there cannot be any further grievance with regard to the alleged non-satisfaction of the condition imposed by the appellate authority. The learned Government Pleader points out that, some more liability is there, in respect of the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged the said proceedings as well, by filing necessary appeals and has obtained an interim stay 'yesterday', on condition. It is stated that steps are being taken to satisfy the condition imposed by the Appellate Authority in respect of the said assessment years as well, simultaneously adding that, the petitioner is ready to produce copies of the relevant orders before the Check Post authorities in this regard.
6. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is directed to produce the interim orders passed by the Appellate Authority before the concerned authorities of Check Post and on satisfaction of the condition imposed, the goods detained shall be released to the petitioner forthwith.
The writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the concerned authorities for further steps.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Pn