High Court Kerala High Court

P.M.Ashraf vs State Of Kerala on 5 February, 2008

Kerala High Court
P.M.Ashraf vs State Of Kerala on 5 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 4189 of 2008(W)


1. P.M.ASHRAF, M/S.KALPAKA CHICKEN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE COMMISSIONER,

3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

4. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,

5. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,

6. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT),

7. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :05/02/2008

 O R D E R
                            ANTONY DOMINIC,J.

                    =============================

                    WRIT PETITION  NO. 4189  OF 2008

                    =============================

                   Dated this the 5th   day of February  2008


                                 JUDGMENT

Ext.P6 notice issued under Section 47(16A) of the KVAT Act

2003 is under challenge. By this notice, the petitioner is directed

to remit advance tax for the consignment detained taking value

at the rate of Rs.40/= per kg. Petitioner submits that Ext.P2 is

the invoice and that the price paid was only Rs.24/= per kg.

According to him, since the demand made in Ext.P6 was

exorbitant, he expressed his inability to comply with Ext.P6 and

offered that the department can take over the stock by paying

him 10% of the amount, than is what is indicated in the delivery

note.

2. The irregularity, according to the department, appears to

be of under valuation and the correctness of this allegation is a

matter to be examined and found out in an adjudication that is to

be held. In the meantime, pending such adjudication, the

petitioner being a registered dealer, I do not think it is necessary

W.P.(C)4189/2008 2

to detain the live chicken. Therefore, I direct that on the

petitioner remitting the advance tax for the stock detained, on

the value as indicated in Ext.P2 invoice, and furnishing a bond

without sureties for the balance amount indicated in Ext.P6

notice, the consignment now detained shall be released to the

petitioner. However, adjudication will be conducted and

thereafter the parties will be governed by the order to be passed.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

css/