CENTRAL ARECANUT AND COCOA MARKETING PROCESSING CO-OPERATIVE LTD. (CAMPCO LTD) Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - original owner of the goods seized has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction, order to quash and set aside the impugned memo of seizure issued on 28.12.2014 by the respondent No. 5 and consequently to release the goods lying in Truck No. RJ -14 -1G -4047 on any reasonable condition as may think fit and proper.

(2.) SHRI D.K. Puj, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated at the Bar that the transaction between the petitioner and purchaser - M/s. Saloni Trading Company, Ahmedabad for which the invoice was issued by the petitioner on 25.12.2014 has been canceled and the petitioner is the absolute owner of the goods seized. He has stated at the Bar that the petitioner has not received any sale consideration from the said M/s. Saloni Trading Company. He has also stated at the Bar that as such the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the tax, interest and penalty imposable under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "VAT Act") which according to the respondent comes to Rs. 5,69,989/ -. He has stated at the Bar that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the aforesaid amount unconditionally and accepts the liability to pay the aforesaid amount towards VAT Act with interest and penalty. He has stated at the Bar that authorized signatory of the petitioner - Shri Gangadhara P.M. S/o. Mahabalaiah, who is also the Regional Manager of the petitioner company has filed the undertaking to the aforesaid extent in which it is stated that the petitioner company is ready and willing to deposit amount of Rs. 5,69,989/ - unconditionally being the amount of tax, penalty and interest under the VAT Act. Therefore, he has requested that on payment of the aforesaid amount, the goods seized worth approximately Rs. 44 lacs may be directed to be released.

(3.) SHRI Chintan Dave, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has initially tried to oppose the present Special Civil Application and requested to dismiss the Special Civil Application on the ground of suppression of fact and/or considering the conduct on the part of the petitioner, however at the most the respondent may insist for payment of tax, penalty and interest leviable under the VAT Act and when the petitioner company has agreed to pay the said amount unconditionally, he has requested to pass appropriate order.