IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34310 of 2009(G)
1. M/S. DATACOM SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTE BY SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL
3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES
For Petitioner :SMT.K.LATHA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :01/12/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.34310 OF 2009
------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
———————-
1. Detention of transport of telecommunication
equipments is under challenge. The reason for detention as
evidenced by Ext.P5 notice, issued under Section 47 (2), is that
the consignment was supported only by Form-JJ delivery note
issued under the TNVAT Act and only photocopy of the invoices
was available. It is further noticed that the value of the articles
were not mentioned in the invoice, but only in the Form-JJ
delivery note. Therefore the authorities suspected attempt of
multiple transactions using the invoice and copy of the Form-JJ
and Delivery Note.
2. According to the petitioner the equipments were
imported for own use and since there was no tax liability the
consignor has dispatched the original invoice by courier, and a
copy was only entrusted with the transporter. The mistake was
quite genuine and it is contended that on issuing Ext.P5 notice,
the original invoice was produced before the 2nd respondent, but
the same was not accepted by that authority. It is pointed out
that the apprehension expressed has no basis, because the goods
is intended for own use and there is no tax liability with respect
W.P.(C).34310/09-G 2
to the transaction.
3. Having considered facts and circumstances I am of
the opinion that the question whether there was any attempt at
evasion of payment of tax with respect to the transport, is a
matter which need be decided on finalisation of the adjudication
contemplated under Section 47(6) of the Act. Having considered
the fact that the petitioner is a registered dealer and the goods
are intended for own use, I am of the opinion that the goods can
be released pending finalisation of the adjudication on the
petitioner furnishing proper security.
4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the
2nd respondent to release the goods detained under Ext.P5 notice
along with the vehicle, on the petitioner furnishing security bond
in the form provided under the KVAT Rules, without sureties, for
the value of security deposit demanded under Ext.P5.
5. The competent authorities under Section 47(5) and (6)
are directed to expedite the adjudication and to finalise the same
after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as
early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from
date of release of the goods.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb