Delhi High Court
Transport Corporation Of India vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 6 October, 2010
Author: Manmohan
#R-9
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10310/2006
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. T.A. Francis, Advocate
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
& ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. H.L. Taneja, Advocate for
R-1.
Mr. S.C. Rajpal, Advocate for
R-3.
% Date of Decision: 6th October, 2010
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J :
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India with the following reliefs :-
a) To direct the respondent no. 3 to get the goods released
immediately by complying with the demands made by the
respondent no. 2 and handover the goods to its bona fide
owners.
b) As the respondent no. 2 has clearly fixed the responsibilities
of the alleged violation on the respondent no. 3, no liability is
fastened upon the petitioner and as such the non-appearance
of the orders of the respondent no. 2 by the respondent no. 3
though they may be right or wrong is in fact causing
prejudice to the petitioner.
2. The relevant facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a
public carrier and transporting goods from and to various destinations
of India. The goods consigned by various consignors for transportation
were booked by the petitioner being a public carrier along with liability
for reaching the goods in safe and sound condition to the different
consignees for consideration. The petitioner handed over all relevant
documents to respondent no. 3 in respect of the goods such as latex,
rubber, supari, scrap valves etc. The said goods were transported from
various destinations by truck to a central hub by the petitioner. The
said goods were then stuffed into the containers of Container
Corporation of India Ltd., respondent no. 3 herein, along with
photocopy of all documents necessary for the unhindered passage of the
goods through the long haul to its receiving point by the petitioner.
After having reached the receiving point and after unloading the
containers, the petitioner's trucks were to be loaded with the said goods
and thereafter the goods were to be sent to various destinations in
Punjab, Himachal Pradesh etc.
3. However, when the goods reached Delhi, the competent authority
of respondent no. 1 in exercise of power under Delhi Value Added Tax
Act, 2004 (for brevity 'Act') and rules framed thereunder seized the
vehicles and after unloading, detained the goods and imposed penalty.
4. Be it noted, when the penalty was imposed on the detained
goods, the petitioner had moved this Court and this Court by an ad
interim measure had directed that the goods be released subject to
petitioner's furnishing a fixed deposit receipt amounting to ` 2,00,000/-
to the Registrar General of this Court without prejudice to the rights and
contentions raised in the present petition.
5. The submission of Mr. T.A. Francis, learned counsel for
petitioner is that as the goods were never sold in Delhi, the provisions
of the Act were not attracted and consequently, the imposition of
penalty was vitiated in law. He further submitted that respondent no. 3,
namely, the Container Corporation of India Ltd. should have shown the
documents to the competent authority of respondent no. 1 and for its
failure to do so, neither the petitioner nor the consignees should be
penalised.
6. On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Rajpal, learned counsel for
respondent no. 3 relied upon Section 61(8) of the Act to submit that
respondent no. 3 was not to carry the documents in view of the
language employed in the said Section.
7. Accordingly, the question that arises for consideration in this writ
petition is whether the goods were actually sold in Delhi or only
transported through Delhi to reach another destinations.
8. In our opinion, the aforesaid enquiry cannot be carried out in a
proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. In view of the aforesaid, we direct that the Value Added Tax
officer under the Act shall conduct an inquiry on production of
documents before him (which has been filed before this Court) and
after affording an opportunity of hearing.
10. The amount that has already been deposited before this Court be
transferred to the Value Added Tax Authority. The Registrar General
of this Court is directed to prepare an account payee cheque in the
name of the Commissioner of VAT, Government of NCT of Delhi,
New Delhi. The cheque shall be handed over to Mr. H.L. Taneja,
learned counsel for GNCT of Delhi after obtaining the receipt.
11. The competent authority of the Value Added Tax shall complete
the aforesaid exercise within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of the order passed today.
12. Be it noted, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of
the case or the stand and stance put forth by the third respondent that it
is covered under Section 61(8) of the Act inasmuch as the Container
Corporation of India Ltd. is not a petitioner before us.
13. As conceded to by Mr. H.L. Taneja and Mr. S.C. Rajpal, learned
counsel for respondents, the Value Added Tax Officer shall also hear
the Container Corporation of India Ltd. so that the controversy can be
appreciated from all spectrums.
14. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
OCTOBER 6 , 2010
rn
