IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26566 of 2010(U)
1. M/S.LEELA ENTERPRISES, BEAT NO.7,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,IST CIRCLE,
3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,
For Petitioner :SMT.K.LATHA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :20/08/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
--------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 26566 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner transported certain goods on the strength of Ext.P2
invoice, which were being transported from ‘Udaipur’ to the destination at
Ernakulam in the vehicle bearing No.KA 01 C 8222, when the same was
intercepted on the way, on 12.08.2010, issuing Ext.P3 notice under
Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, doubting evasion of tax
and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein. The
petitioner is challenging the said proceedings and has approached this
Court seeking to have the goods released.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the main
defect noted in Ext.P3 is that the petitioner/consignee is not a registered
dealer. The petitioner has produced a copy of the registration certificate as
borne by Ext.P1 showing that the petitioner is a registered dealer. The
learned Government Pleader brought it to the notice of this Court that in
Ext.P2, ‘TIN’ has not been given but for giving some other number, which
is sought to be explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, it is
nothing other than the ‘KGST number’ of the petitioner. The learned
Government Pleader submits that this is nothing but a conscious act being
2
WP(C) No. 26566/2010
pursued by the concerned assessee and that, unless and until the ‘KGST
number’ was deliberately furnished by the petitioner, the same could not
have been entered in the relevant records by the consignor in Udaipur.
This being the position, the matter requires to be adjudicated, submits the
learned Government Pleader.
4. This Court finds considerable force in the said submission and
holds that this is a matter which shall be adjudicated by way of appropriate
proceedings in accordance with law. But for that reason, it is not necessary
to detain the vehicle as well as the goods any further. The same shall be
released to the petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner satisfies
50% of the security deposit demanded in Ext.P3 and furnishes a ‘simple
bond’ for the balance amount. This will be without prejudice to the rights
and liberties of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings,
which shall be finalised in accordance with law, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc