IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8649 of 2009(A)
1. M/S.SOUTHERN ISPAT LIMITED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. SALES TAX INSPECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :19/03/2009
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 8649 OF 2009 A
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 which is a notice issued
under section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
The objection stated is as follows:
” The goods under transport is M.S.Ingots
sold by M/s.Southern Ispat Ltd. But the Delivery
Note in Form 15 prescribed under section 46(3)
of the KVAT Act is not issued by M/s.Southern
Ispat Ltd. Evasion of attempt of tax is
suspected, in the absence of consignor’s
delivery note. Moreover information gathered
from the assessing authority is that, the
consignor is not a prompt remitter of tax to
government. In the circumstances, bonafides of
the transport and attempt to evasion of tax
suspected.”
2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Raju
Joseph and learned Government Pleader. According to the
petitioner, the petitioner has sold 15.475 MT of M.S.Ingots to
M/s.Jayasankar Steels Private Limited. The goods were
accompanied by the sales invoice. It is also stated that the goods
WPC.8649/09
: 2 :
were accompanied by the delivery note of the consignee. It is
pointed out that there is no requirement that there should be a
delivery note. Further contention is that the Rule does not
specifically stipulate that the delivery note should be by the
consignor itself. I find that in Ext.P1, the officer has taken note of
the bill as also the delivery note issued by the consignee. Of
course, it is stated that the information gathered from the
assessing authority is that the consignor is not a prompt remitter of
tax. Having regard to the totality of facts, I would think that the
goods should be released to the petitioner upon the petitioner
giving a simple bond without sureties and adjudication is to be
completed.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd
respondent to release the goods detained vide Ext.P1 immediately
upon the petitioner executing a simple bond without sureties for
the amount. The adjudication will be completed within two months
WPC.8649/09
: 3 :
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment untrammeled
by anything stated in this judgment.
Sd/-
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
aks