IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21474 of 2008(F)
1. M/S.SIEMENS LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR
... Respondent
2. M.U.M.HOSPITAL, MONIPPALLY PO., KOTTAYAM
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSE JOSEPH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :18/07/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C).No.21474 of 2008 F
-------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 notice, by
which a X-ray Unit, which was consigned from Vellore
to a Hospital in Kottayam, has been detained. The
following is the reason stated in Ext.P5:
“The consignee is not a registered
dealer under KVAT Act, 2003, whereas the
consignor is a registered dealer under
KVAT Act. Moreover, on verification of
the purchase order, it was revealed that
the purchase order was submitted to the
Ernakulam Branch of the Consignor and
initial payment of advance was also made
by the consignee as per Cheque No.369315
of SBT, Monippally Branch dated
07.05.2008 for Rs.4,75,000/- to the
Ernakulam Branch. In the circumstances
Form No.16 produced by the consignee
cannot be accepted on the ground that
the consignor in collusion with the
consignee instead of effecting sales
from Ernakulam Branch, is attempting to
transport on the strength of Form No.16
with an ulterior intention of evading
payment of tax legitimately due to state
Exchequer.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner does not have a manufacturing
unit. Therefore, though Ext.P1 was addressed to the
W.P.(C).NO.21474/08
:: 2 ::
branch here at Cochin, the goods were consigned from
Tamilnadu and the consignor is a registered dealer
under the KVAT Act and consequently, there was an
inter-state movement of goods.
3. In my view, the adjudication as proposed
under Ext.P5 may go on. There does not seem to be any
reason for the goods should be detained.
4. In the result, the writ petition is
disposed of directing the 1st respondent to release
the goods detained under Ext.P5 on the petitioner
executing a bond without sureties. It is made clear
that the adjudication as proposed under Ext.P5 shall
be completed within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this
judgment along with a copy of the writ petition
before the 1st respondent for compliance.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. To Judge