IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29584 of 2010(W)
1. M/S.SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS P.LTD.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR AND OTHERS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.NOBLE MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :24/09/2010
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.29584 of 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
———————-
Petitioner is aggrieved by interception of goods
transported on the strength of invoice, on issuing Ext.P2
notice under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax
Act, 2003. The goods under transport were 20 Nos. of
Refrigerators despatched from the place of business of the
petitioner at Kakkanadu to a distributor at Harippad.
According to the petitioner, the vehicle was sent from
Kakkanadu during the night of 17.9.2010 and the goods
could not be unloaded at the place of business of the dealer
at Harippad on the next day morning, due to an unexpected
Harthal declared on that area and since the shop of the
dealer remained closed on that day. The next day
(19.9.2010) was a Holiday, being Sunday. When the goods
were brought from the place of residence of the driver of the
vehicle to the consignee, on 20.9.2010 at about 9.30 A.M.,
the 1st respondent intercepted and Ext.P2 notice was issued.
W.P.(C).29584/10-W -2-
2. On a perusal of Ext.P2 it is evident that the reason for
detention mentioned therein is that eventhough the invoice is
dated 17.9.2010, the goods were seen transported only on
20.9.2010. Hence suspecting that more than one consignment
might have been sent using the same documents, genuineness of
the transport as well as evasion of payment of tax was
questioned. Petitioner was requested to pay security deposit to
the tune of Rs.54,730/-.
3. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of
the respondents submitted that the interception was after three
days of despatch of the goods, whereas the maximum time which
will be taken for the transport from Kakkanadu to the place of
the consignee, will be only 2= hours. Hence genuineness of the
transport is under suspicion.
4. Question whether there was any attempt at evasion of
payment of tax is a matter which need be decided on finalising
the enquiry. According to the petitioner, they are registered
dealers regularly paying tax and being a reputed company they
will not indulge in any unaccounted or unauthorised deals. It is
also submitted that the petitioner company was elected as the
best tax payer during the previous year.
W.P.(C).29584/10-W -3-
5. Having considered facts and circumstances I am of
the opinion that pending finalisation of the enquiry proceeding
the goods can be released on the petitioner furnishing proper
security for the amount demanded under Ext.P2.
6. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing
the 1st respondent to release the goods along with the vehicle,
which is detained under Ext.P2, on the petitioner furnishing
security bond as provided under the KVAT Rules, without
sureties, for the amount demanded under Ext.P2.
7. The competent authority under Section 47 will finalise
the enquiry after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate within a period of two
months from the date of release of the goods.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb