ASHWIN KOTHARI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioner challenging the order in CMP. No. 674/2014 in Crime No. 160/2014 of Ernakulam North Police Station to the extent objected by him under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is a proprietor of the concern by name Khima Kanchi having his business establishment in Door No. 44/2219 A2, Deshabhmani Road, Ernakulam. They are engaged in manufacturing of gold ornaments. They are having requisite licences and registration under the competent authorities. They have also taken registration under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KVAT Act') and Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the CST Act'). They used to obtain row gold/old gold from customers for manufacturing of new pattern of ornaments and after manufacturing, they used to return after levying labour charges on the basis of contract. Earlier they were engaged in trade of gold ornaments also in a small level. They are regularly filing the necessary returns before the authorities and the assessing authority never objected or complained of about the activities of the petitioner. On 21.2.2014 the first respondent conducted a search and seized 7593.862 grams of gold ornaments and a sum of Rs. 53,640/ - from the premises of the petitioner. They have incorporated the provision under Section 102 of the Code for conducting search and they have produced all the seized articles before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, (Economic Offence), Ernakulam. The petitioner has filed CMP. No. 674/2014 under Section 451 of the Code for getting interim custody of the seized ornaments and cash. The second respondent filed a report simply raising a demand on the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 27,20,665/ - (Rs. 906885 as tax + Rs. 18,13,770/ - as penalty) and contended that the goods can be released after collecting the above said amount from the petitioner. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order partly allowed the petition as follows:

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor filed a statement earlier which reads as follows: