IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3543 of 2010(P)
1. M/S.ACE FINE PACKS PVT.LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (ASSMT),
For Petitioner :SMT.S.K.DEVI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :04/02/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
-------------------------
W.P (C) Nos. 3543 & 3639 of 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 4th February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
In both these cases the common issue involved is
whether the respondents are justified in detaining the
goods belonging to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 notice
issued under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax
Act suspecting chance for “future evasion” of tax; thus
demanding security deposit to the extent as specified
therein.
2. The incriminating circumstance pointed out in
Ext.P1 is that the goods were being transported only on
the strength of ‘extra copy’ of the invoice; under which
circumstance, there was a possibility of repeated transport
using other copies and it was in the said circumstances,
that the goods were detained issuing the impugned notice
demanding security deposit which is under challenge in
both these writ petitions.
3. The nature of the contention put forth by the
petitioner in both these cases is rather similar. The
W.P (C) Nos. 3543 &3639 of 2010
2
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
discrepancy was only a mistake at the hands of the
concerned Clerk of the Consignor and that it is rather
‘technical’ thus seeking for the benefit of the second
proviso to Section 47 (2) of the Act, enabling the petitioner
to effect the advance tax and to have the goods cleared, at
the earliest.
4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents submits that the defect pointed is not
liable to be considered as ‘technical’ one; the act pursued
by the petitioner being very much contrary to the statutory
prescription under Rule 58 (11) of the Kerala Value Added
Tax Rules. The petitioner having admitted the lapse as
to the absence of the particular type of document as
stipulated under the Rules, it is no more open to the
petitioner to say that it is ‘technical’; submits the learned
Government Pleader.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances and
also taking note of the rival contentions, this Court finds
that the goods belonging to the petitioner need not be
W.P (C) Nos. 3543 &3639 of 2010
3
detained at the check post any further and that the same
could be released to the petitioner on condition that the
petitioner remits 50% of the amount demanded under
Ext.P1 and also executes a ‘simple bond ‘ in respect of the
balance amount shown in Ext.P1. On satisfying the
requirement as above, the goods shall be released to the
petitioner forthwith and 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 a
period of 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
ma
W.P (C) Nos. 3543 &3639 of 2010
4
W.P (C) Nos. 3543 &3639 of 2010
5