IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24658 of 2010(F)
1. MUHAMMED RAFEEK, FAMOUS EXPORTERS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR , SWAUAD NO.V
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :05/08/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
---------------------------
W.P(C) No.24658 of 2010
----------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner who is a registered dealer under the KVAT Act
was transporting dried arecanut in the vehicle bearing registration
No.TN-43-2/7200 to the destination in Rajasthan on the strength
of Ext.P1 delivery note. When the vehicle was proceeding as above,
the same was intercepted by the respondent on 3.8.2010 issuing
Ext.P2 notice u/s 47(2) of KVAT Act doubting evasion of tax and
demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein, which
in turn is under challenge in this writ petition. The reason for
doubting tax as given in Ext.P2 is extracted in paragraph 2 of the
writ petition which reads as:
“(1) Time of commencement of journey is not
written in the prescribed column of the delivery
note accompanied, which is against existing rule(2)
And also the signature of the consignor in the D
note is not dated as required in the prescribed
column of the D note and is also against existing
directions and rule. Possibility of using the same DW.P.C. No.24658/10 2
note for another consignment in between the
destination is suspected (3) And also 795 Kgs of
goods is seen excess as per the weighment slips
accompanied 300 Kgs of the weight of sacks is
deducted from this and S.D and cess demanded for
20495 Kgs of arecanut. Value estimated to
Rs.1024750/- S.D. Rs.81980+CessRs.8198/-
=90178 ie.,Rs.90180/- and AT Rs.40990 +Cess
4100 Total 45090/- also demanded.”
The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the alleged
incriminating circumstances are rather ‘technical’ in nature and
hence that the detention is unjustified.
2. Learned Government pleader appearing for the respondent
submits that with reference to the materials on record that there is
no explanation at all with regard to the aspects pointed out in
Ext.P2 notice and that the same will rather amount to admission of
the defects. This being the position, the action pursued by
respondent, issuing Ext.P2 notice is in conformity with the statutory
prescription and not assailable under any circumstances.
3. Considering the nature of the transaction and also the
materials on record this court finds that this matter requires
adjudication by the competent authority, so as to bring out the true
W.P.C. No.24658/10 3
state of affairs to light. The correctness of the figures given with
regard to the rate of Cess shown in Ext.P2 notice shall also be
considered in the course of adjudication proceedings as above.
However, for that matter, the vehicle and the goods need not be
detained any further and the same shall be released to the
petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of
the security deposit demanded vide Ext.P2 ether in cash or by ‘bank
guarantee’ and furnishes security for the balance amount. This will
be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondent to
pursue adjudication proceedings, which shall be finalised in
accordance with the relevant provisions of law, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
sou.