IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21471 of 2010(H)
1. TATA TELESERVICES LIMITED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,
... Respondent
2. ASST.COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :12/07/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
--------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 21471 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved of the detention of the goods transported
by the petitioner allegedly for ‘own use’; which however was intercepted on
16.06.2010, issuing Ext.P1 notice under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value
Added Tax Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to
the extent specified therein.
2. The incriminating circumstance noted in Ext.P4 is as follows:
“On verification of the KVAT IS, it is seen that the consignee
is not permitted to transport the above mentioned item. Hence
evasion of tax suspected and SD demanded”.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes the factual
position that the petitioner is not entitled to have the goods purchased,
availing concessional rate of tax, issuing ‘C form’. The case of the petitioner
is that, the transaction cannot attract any tax liability, by virtue of Ext.P6
notification dated 28.01.2008 and as such, the petitioner is very much
justified in transporting the goods for ‘own use’. The learned counsel also
submits that, the goods were very much accompanied by Ext.P2/’Form 16′,
supported by Ext.P3 declaration and the factual position was explained by
submitting Ext.P5 reply, in response to Ext.P4 notice; which however has not
been correctly appreciated by the respondents, forcing the petitioner to
approach this Court for appropriate relief.
4. The learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits
2
WP(C) No. 21471/2010
that, the defect noted as to the purchase of the materials issuing ‘C form’
stands rather admitted by the petitioner, which does not require to be proved
any further. With regard to the correctness and applicability of Ext.P6, the
learned Government Pleader submits that, this is a matter which requires to
be considered by way of ‘adjudication’. It is also stated that, no ‘form 16’ was
actually accompanying the transport and that the contention raised by the
petitioner to the contrary cannot be correct at all.
5. Going by the rival pleadings, this Court finds that the matter
requires to be considered by way of ‘adjudication’, so as to bring the true
state of affairs to light. But for this reason, this Court does not find it
necessary to detain the goods any further and the same shall be released to
the petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner executes a ‘simple
bond’ for the amount shown as security deposit in Ext.P4. 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