IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14782 of 2008(I)
1. M/S. GEI INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
3. M/S. HINDAL CO INDUSTRIES LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.BOBBY JOHN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :21/05/2008
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WP.(C) No. 14782 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext.P6 notice issued by the first
respondent. It seeks a direction to the first respondent to release the
goods and vehicle detained pursuant to Ext.P6 notice without insisting
on payment of the amount demanded therein.
2. Petitioner is a Public Limited Company allegedly having
its office in Govindpura, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. According to the
petitioner, it purchased 7498 Kgs., of Aluminium Pipe Tube from the
third respondent, which is a registered dealer under the Kerala Value
Added Tax, 2003 and Central Sales Tax. According to it when the
goods reached at the factory of the petitioner, it was found that a
portion of the goods was defective and the petitioner rejected a quantity
of 7010 Kgs and returned it to the original seller in Kerala (third
respondent) with valid documents as prescribed under the Madhya
Pradesh Value Added Tax Act. It is stated that when the vehicle
reached the check post, the check post authority verified the documents
and satisfied of the genuineness of the transportation of the goods.
WPC.14782/2008. 2
While the goods were at Aluva, the first respondent intercepted the
vehicle and demanded documents and Ext.P3 tax invoice and Ext.P4
delivery chellan were produced, it is stated. It is thereafter that Ext.P6
notice was issued under Section 47(2) demanding payment of
Rs.3,26,500/- as security deposit. The reason stated is as follows:
“The goods sunder transport is intercepted at
Ambattu Kavu, Aluva. As per the only accompanying
documents (Tax invoice) this is an interstate sale. But in the
invoice it is declared as rejected material returned. But there
is no supporting documents for the claim. There is also no
supporting document as per Rule 58 of KVAT Act, 2003.
Consignee’s TIN disclosed in the tax invoice is also wrong.”
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Pleader.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that none
of the reasons mentioned in Ext.P6 notice are tenable. In respect of the
alleged violation of Rule 58 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, he relied
on two decisions of this court reported in M/s.Rasal Trade Links v. Sales
Tax Inspector ((2000) 8 KTR 244 (Ker.)) and Baheej Agencies v. Sales
Tax Inspector ((1998) 6 KTR 150 (Ker.)) He would contend that on the
strength of these decisions when goods are sent under interstate transaction,
as long as the goods are accompanied by documents prescribed under the
law of the area from which the goods were sent, it is not necessary that the
WPC.14782/2008. 3
goods should be accompanied by the documents prescribed under the Kerala
Value Added Tax Act. On the strength of the said principle, he would
submit that there is no requirement that the documents prescribed under
Rule 58 should accompany the goods. In regard to the difference in TIN,
according to him, the TIN is the same. In regard to there being no document
to support the claim that the goods were rejected also, it is contended that it
is not correct.
5. I would think that in the facts of this case, while I should
direct that the adjudication to be completed on the basis of the objection
filed as Ext.P7, there should also be a direction to the first respondent to
release the goods and vehicle to the petitioner upon the petitioner providing
bank guarantee for the sum as demanded in Ext.P6 notice.
Accordingly, upon the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for
the sum as provided for in Ext.P6 notice, the vehicle and the goods shall be
released to the petitioner. The adjudication pursuant to Ext.P6 shall be
completed with reference to Ext.P7 reply filed by the petitioner after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE)
sb