High Court Kerala High Court

M/S. Xerox India Ltd vs The Intelligence Inspector on 26 November, 2007

Kerala High Court
M/S. Xerox India Ltd vs The Intelligence Inspector on 26 November, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 34791 of 2007(P)


1. M/S. XEROX INDIA LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :26/11/2007

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J

                               -------------------

                          W.P.(C).34791/2007

                              --------------------

          Dated this  the  26th  day of November, 2007


                               JUDGMENT

The goods manufactured and transported by the

petitioner is under detention and Ext.P3 is the notice of

detention. It is stated that the value adopted for the

machine is Rs.2,71,506/- but on physical varification of

the printer, the MRP shown in the box was Rs.7,15,681/-

and which indicated a difference of Rs.4,44,175/-. On

this basis, it is stated that the consignee had colluded

with the consignor and is attempting to evade tax

resorting to under valuation.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

it is a case of stock transfer and therefore there is no

question of any tax evasion. It is also contended that

while the sale price is determined by market prices,

MRP is declared only for other purposes including

taxation. Therefore, contention is that difference is

nothing but natural. It is also contended that the Officer

in the check post had no authority to detain the goods in

W.P.(C).34791/2007

2

as much as Section 45(d) has no application for stock

transfer.

3. Primafacie I am not satisfied with the contentions

raised. The contention that MRP is totally unrelated with

the actual sale price and the argument that the check

post authority had no right to detain the goods are

required to be adjudicated. Accordingly, I am not

inclined to direct that the goods shall be released as

prayed for in this writ petition. However, if the

petitioner furnishes Bank guarantee, the goods may be

released. Thereafter adjudication shall continue.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC

Judge

mrcs