High Court Kerala High Court

Philips Carbon Black Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner … on 15 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Philips Carbon Black Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner … on 15 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 1129 of 2010(M)


1. PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LIMITED, KARIMUGAL,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT),
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :15/01/2010

 O R D E R
            P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                 W.P.(C) No.1129 of 2010
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
       Dated this the 15th day of January , 2010

                       J U D G M E N T

The goods transported by the petitioner in the vehicle

bearing Registration No.TN47C 2799, allegedly as by way

of stock transfer, were intercepted by the first respondent

leading to issuance of Ext.P3, stating that the Delivery note

did not contain the relevant ‘date and seal’ and hence

demanding security to the extent as prescribed therein

which is sought to be intercepted by this Court in this writ

petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the defect noted by the concerned respondent

is rather technical. The learned counsel also submitted that

there is no case for the respondents that the goods were

being conveyed without the required documents as

contemplated under Section 46(3) of the KVAT Act. The

learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents

-2-
W.P.(C) No.1129 of 2010

submits that in so far as the existence of mistake/defect is

conceded, there is absolutely no scope for interference and

that the first respondent is justified in having issued Ext.P3,

suspecting evasion of tax. The learned Government Pleader

also makes a reference to Ext.P2 ‘delivery note’, wherein a

seal has been affixed as “local movement only”, which ought

not to have been there, as the conveyance was not within

the State.

3. Considering facts and circumstances, this Court

does not propose to go into the merits of the rival

contentions, but for observing that the goods as well as the

vehicle forming the subject matter of Ext.P3 can be released

to the petitioner, on condition that the petitioner satisfies

fifty percent of the liability as shown in Ext.P3 and executes

a ‘simple bond’ in respect of the balance. On satisfying the

requirement as above, the vehicle and the goods shall be

released to the petitioner forthwith. However, it is also

made clear that, this will be without prejudice to the right

-3-
W.P.(C) No.1129 of 2010

of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings,

which however shall be finalised as expeditiously as

possible, at any rate within two months from the date

receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

4. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
(JUDGE)

nl