IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28963 of 2009(M)
1. M/S.BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT),
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
For Petitioner :SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :14/10/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 28963 of 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 14th October, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a paint Company. According to them, while the
vehicle transporting paints from their Thrissur depot to Cochin depot,
the same was detained by the 1st respondent under Section 47(2) of
the Kerala Value Added Tax Act on the ground that the delivery note
produced does not show the time of commencement of the journey
and column no. 8 is not filled up and therefore the 1st respondent
suspects evasion of tax. Ext. P6 notice has been issued to the
petitioner directing them to furnish cash security for Rs. 1,08,203/-
pending further proceedings thereto. The petitioner is challenging
Ext. P6.
2. According to the petitioner, this being purely a stock transfer
from one depot to another and all details are specifically mentioned
in the delivery note itself, the fact that the section clerk did not
mention the time of starting journey cannot give any occasion to
suspect evasion of tax. The petitioner particularly mentions that the
delivery note specifically stated that it is for local movement only and
details of invoices are specifically mentioned. The petitioner
therefore seeks release of the goods without insisting on cash
security.
3. The learned Government Pleader submits that the distance
between Thrissur and Cochin is only about 70 kms., and therefore if
the time of starting the journey is not mentioned, there is every
likelihood of the same delivery note being used for more than one
consignment. Therefore, the goods cannot be released without giving
cash security, is his contention.
4. In answer, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
paints being non-notified goods, delivery note is not compulsory at all
and invoice alone is sufficient and the goods are accompanied by
W.P.C. No. 28963/2009. -: 2 :-
invoices.
5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
6. First of all, I note that the allegation in Ext. P6 notice that
column no. 8 of the delivery note is not filled up, is not correct. In
fact, a seal is stamped there stating that the consignment is for local
movement only. Apart from that, I find considerable merit in the
contention of the petitioner insofar as the delivery note itself
contains the invoice numbers and the goods are accompanied by
invoices also. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is
disposed of with the following directions:
The competent authority shall complete the proceedings
pursuant to Ext. P6 as expeditiously as possible. Pending finalisation
of proceedings , the goods shall be released to the petitioner on the
petitioner furnishing a bond without sureties for the amount covered
by Ext. P6.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.