High Court Kerala High Court

M/S.U.T.Ltd. vs The Commercial Tax Inspector on 15 April, 2009

Kerala High Court
M/S.U.T.Ltd. vs The Commercial Tax Inspector on 15 April, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 12245 of 2009()


1. M/S.U.T.LTD., P.O.CHANDANAGAR,BUDGE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. P.J.PRINCE REGENCY, 7/52, PDUVYPPU,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :15/04/2009

 O R D E R
                       S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
               --------------------------------------
                   W.P.(C).No.12245 of 2009
               --------------------------------------
                    Dated: APRIL 15, 2009

                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in

the business of designing, manufacturing, supplying and

commissioning of UT Ascent Hydraulic type passenger lift

and is also a registered dealer under the West Bengal VAT

and CST Act and under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act.

The 2nd respondent is engaged in the construction of a hotel

and for the said purpose the 2nd respondent is stated to have

placed an order on the petitioner pursuant to which the

petitioner has consigned hydraulic lift and accessories to the

2nd respondent. The same has been detained by the 1st

respondent on the allegation that the consignee is not a

registered dealer under the KVAT Act. The petitioner

challenges Ext.P4. According to the petitioner, the 2nd

respondent has placed orders for personal use and not for

W.P.(C).No.12245 of 2009
2

re-sale and therefore it is not necessary that the 2nd

respondent should be a registered dealer under the Act for

the purpose of transporting the lift parts to the 2nd

respondent.

2. The learned Government Pleader submits that in so

far as the consignment consists of bulk parts, there is

reason to suspect that the 2nd respondent may re-sell the

parts. On a query from the court, the learned Government

Pleader submits that the 2nd respondent can furnish a

declaration to the effect that the consignment is for his

personal use. I am of opinion that in such circumstances it

is not necessary to detain the goods any further.

3. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with the

following directions:-

On the petitioner producing a declaration from the 2nd

respondent to the effect that the goods in question are for

his personal use and on furnishing a simple bond without

W.P.(C).No.12245 of 2009
3

sureties covering the amounts stipulated in Ext.P4, the

goods shall be released to the petitioner. The further

proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be completed as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

JUDGE

mt/-