Wazeera Ayoob vs Intelligence Inspector on 17 June, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 18820 of 2010(B)


1. WAZEERA AYOOB, SHOE SHOPPE, S-25,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U.

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :17/06/2010

 O R D E R
           P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
             ...................................................
                   WP (C) No. 18820 of 2010
               ...............................................
             Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010

                         J U D G M E N T

————————

The petitioner is a whole sale dealer in shoes,

purchasing the same from the suppliers in Bangalore and

elsewhere and effecting the sales, on the basis of the

certificate of registration obtained as Exhibit P1,

effecting payments of the tax payable as and when the

same is due. The case of the petitioner is that the

petitioner purchased same items in course of the

transactions as above, as covered by Exhibit P3 invoice

and the same was being taken in the vehicle bearing

No.KL-7 A 2070, when it was intervened by the first

respondent on 11.06.2010, issuing Exhibit P7 notice under

Sec.47(2) of the KVAT Act doubting evasion of tax and

demanding security deposit to the extent as specified

therein.

2
WP (C) No. 18820 of 2010

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the course pursued by the first respondent is per-se

wrong and illegal in all respects. The petitioner is a

registered dealer and the incriminating circumstance

noted in Exhibit P4 is only ‘under valuation’. The liability

of the petitioner, if at all any, will arise only after the sale

to be effected.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this

Court finds that the matter has to be adjudicated by the

concerned authority in the due course. But the goods

need not be detained any further and accordingly, the

respondents are directed to release the goods forming the

subject matter of Exhibit P4 notice to the petitioner

forthwith, on condition that the petitioner executes a

‘simple bond’ for the requisite amount mentioned therein

as the security deposit. This will be without prejudice to

the rights and interest of the respondents to pursue the

3
WP (C) No. 18820 of 2010

adjudication proceedings, if any which exercise 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.

rkc