IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7111 of 2010(L)
1. M/S.SOUTHERN TIBER DEPOT,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :05/03/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 7111 OF 2010
.........................................................................
Dated this the 5th March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved of Ext.
P4 notice issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, whereby
a huge amount of security deposit has been demanded, doubting
evasion of tax.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
there is absolutely no rationale on the part of the respondents
for having issued Ext. P4, obviously for the reason that all the
requisite documents as contemplated under Section 46(3) of the
Act were accompanying the goods. The learned Counsel further
submits that the respondents do not have a case that the
transport of the goods was without any documents, as
contemplated under the relevant provisions of law. On the other
hand, the insinuating circumstance mentioned in Ext.P4 is that
the vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted at Kannanalloor,
W.P.(C) No. 7111 OF 2010
2
Kollam, while plying from Kannanallor to Kottiyam; whereas the
documents accompanying the transport revealed that the goods
were being transported from Thenkasi to Cheranalloor, Kochi and
hence the destination was suspected; thus apprehending evasion
of tax, demanding double the tax amount as security deposit
which, according to the petitioner does not have any legal or
factual footing.
3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submits that the very nature of the goods being
‘timber’ is an ‘evasion prone’ commodity and hence
that there is every reason for the respondents to suspect the
transaction, if any incriminating circumstance is detected. The
learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is by virtue of
the ‘evasion prone’ nature of the commodity, that the petitioner
has satisfied the ‘advance tax’ as borne by Ext. P3 and that all
the requisite documents, including delivery note (Ext. P2) as
provided under Section 46(3) (b) and Ext. P6 declaration as
provided under Section 46 (3)(d) of the Act were also there.
Over and above this, the petitioner has furnished necessary
W.P.(C) No. 7111 OF 2010
3
delivery notes in ‘Form JJ’ as contemplated under the relevant
rules of the State of Tamil Nadu, besides furnishing
‘measurement list’, both of which also form part of Ext. P6 and
supplied at the Check Post as forming part of the documents
which accompanied the goods.
4. In response to this, the learned Government Pleader
submits that there is violation in so far as the appropriate
entries made in the delivery note do not reconcile with the
stipulation under Rule 58(16) of the KVAT Rules.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances and the nature
of the defect pointed out, this Court does not think it necessary
to detain the vehicle and the goods at the Check Post and the
same can be released to the petitioner on condition that the
petitioner executes a ‘simple bond’ for the requisite amount as
shown in Ext. P4. On satisfying the said requirement, the goods
as well as the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner
forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the rights and
liberties of the respondents to pursue the adjudication
proceedings, if any, which exercise shall be finalised in
W.P.(C) No. 7111 OF 2010
4
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate
within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk