M/S.S.N.Brothers vs The Commercial Tax Inspector on 3 September, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 27494 of 2010(J)



1. M/S.S.N.BROTHERS,ALLEPPEY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,WALAYAR
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :03/09/2010

 O R D E R
                   C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

               --------------------------------------
                W.P.(C).No.27494 of 2010
               --------------------------------------

        Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010


                       J U D G M E N T

———————-

Petitioner is aggrieved by the detention of a

transport of ‘Jute’ imported from Bengladesh. According to

the petitioner, on the basis of orders placed by him, the

goods were imported from Bengladesh in a Truck upto

Calcutta and thereafter it was transported from Culcutta to

Cochin in another vehicle, accompanied by departmental

delivery note. The consignment was intercepted at the

commercial tax checkpost at Walayar on issuing Ext.P4

notice. The reason for detention mentioned in Ext.P4 is that

the delivery note which accompanied the transport was not

one written using double side carbon, and thereby the

petitioner had committed violation of the instructions and

the Rules.

2. Question to be considered is whether there was

any attempt at evasion of payment of tax and as to whether

the petitioner is liable to be imposed with penalty. From

W.P.(C).27494/10 -2-

Ext.P4 it is evident that the detention is by raising objection

which is more in the nature of a technicality with respect to the

documents accompanying the transport. However, I am not

expressing any final opinion in the matter, because adjudication

as contemplated under Section 47 need be completed. Hence I

am of the opinion that the goods and vehicle need not be

detained till such finalisation and that the same can be released

on the petitioner furnishing security.

3. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing

the respondent to release the goods along with the vehicle,

detained under Ext.P4, on the petitioner furnishing security bond

as provided under the KVAT Rules for the amount demanded

therein, without sureties.

4. The competent authority under Section 47 shall

finalise the adjudication after affording opportunity to the

petitioner at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of

two months from the date of release of the goods.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

okb