IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23713 of 2010(L)
1. M/S. JOY ALUKKAS TRADERS (INDIA) PVT.LTD
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ASST. COMMISSIONR (KVAT),
... Respondent
2. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :30/07/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 23713 OF 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P1 notice issued
under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, in respect of the transport of
materials covered by Ext.P2, doubting evasion of tax and
demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, petitioner is one of the
major revenue contributors in the State, whose contribution has
been recognized at different levels in the State. In connection with
the business promotion, the petitioner transported various items
such as ‘clocks, flasks, casseroles’ etc., as given in Ext.P2 delivery
note and also as described in Ext.P3 certificate of ownership in form
16. While the above goods were transported in the vehicle No.KL
01Y 2361, it was intercepted on 24.7.2010 issuing Ext.P4 notice,
which is challenged in the writ petition.
3. Learned counel for the petitioner submits that reasons
given in Ext.P4 do not have any legal or factual footing and are
rather self-contradictory, which has been sought to be explained by
the petitioner by filing Ext.P5 reply. Still, the same has been simply
WPC No.23713/2010
2
given a ‘go-bye’ and the detention continues, which made the
petitioner to approach this Court.
4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submits with reference to the materials on record and
on instructions obtained, that the action pursued by the respondents
is perfectly within the four walls of the law in view of the
discrepancies in the documents which accompanied the transport.
5. Going by the materials on record, the insinuating
circumstance mentioned in Ext.P4 is that, whether the consignee is a
registered dealer or not, is not discernible. It is also stated that the
goods transported are ‘clocks, flasks, casseroles’ etc., whereas the
items mentioned in the supporting documents were only some
packing materials.
6. On going through the very same materials on record,
beneath the entry given as ‘packing materials’, the petitioner has
clearly described the nature of goods as ‘clocks, flasks, casseroles’
etc., which unfortunately escaped the notice of the concerned
respondent while issuing Ext.P4. This being the position, there is
considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, more so since the concerned respondent himself
WPC No.23713/2010
3
has observed in Ext.P4 that the items are actually intended for
‘business promotion’.
7. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that items
brought by the petitioner prima facie, are more for the purpose of
‘business promotion’ even as conceded from the part of the
respondent; which however is a matter which requires proper
adjudication. But, for that reason, the goods need not be detained
and it shall be released to the petitioner forthwith, on executing a
‘simple bond’ by the authorised signatory of the petitioner company.
It is made clear that this will be without prejudice to the right 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 as above.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
(JUDGE)
vps
WPC No.23713/2010
4
WPC No.23713/2010
5