IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31860 of 2010(F)
1. M/S.HADED STEELS PVT.LTD., 12/419,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :19/10/2010
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J
---------------------------
W.P(C) No.31860 of 2010-F
----------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a manufacturer of raw materials used for steel
industry and is a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added
Tax Act (KVAT Act). Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of the
transport of 34.90 M.T of ‘M.S Ingots’ consigned to a dealer at
Calicut. Ext.P5 is the notice issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT
Act. The allegation is that when the driver was asked to stop the
vehicle at the place of interception, at once he put ‘zero’ in the
column provided for mentioning the time of commencement of
journey, in the Delivery Note. According to the respondent it was
only for making it appear that the time was written in 24 Hrs: format
(railway time). From the act on the part of the driver, it is inferred
that the time of commencement of journey was not written in the 24
Hrs: format in the Delivery Note, as required under Rule 58(16) of
the KVAT Rules (as amended). The detaining authority had
compared the Delivery Note with the original copy and found that
there is discrepancy in the carbon impression, which will indicate
W.P(C) No.31860 of 2010-F 2
that there is clear violation of Rule 58(17) of the KVAT Rules. Under
such circumstances suspecting evasion in payment of tax due,
security deposit was demanded.
2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, there
was no malafide intention in the transport and the consignment was
accompanied by tax invoice in Form No.8 as well as the Delivery
Note in Form No.15. The allegation of putting ‘zero’ before the time
mentioned was done only with a genuine intention to rectify the
error occurred while noting down the time, and to make it correct in
accordance with the 24 Hrs: format. There was no attempt in
evasion of payment of tax, is the submission.
3. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand
contended that the item transported by the petitioner is ‘tax prone
item’ and there was an instance of interception of another
consignment of the petitioner during the previous week. It is
submitted that the Delivery Note was kept without filling up one
digit, only with an intention to manipulate the records in order to
suit with the timings of the transport and it will indicate that the
petitioner is malafidely attempting usage of the very same
documents for the purpose of multiple transports.
W.P(C) No.31860 of 2010-F 3
4. I am not arriving at any conclusion regarding the dispute,
because an enquiry as contemplated under Section 47 has to be
conducted. Pending finalisation of the enquiry, I am of the opinion
that the goods can be released on the petitioner furnishing proper
security.
5. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is
disposed of directing the respondent to release the goods detained
under Ext.P5 along with the vehicle, on the petitioner making cash
deposit of 50% of the amount demanded thereunder, and also
furnishing Security Bond for the balance amount, in the form
prescribed under the KVAT Rules, without sureties.
6. The competent enquiry officer will finalise the enquiry
after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the
earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
//True Copy//
ab P.A to Judge
W.P(C) No.31860 of 2010-F 4