High Court Kerala High Court

Poly Glass Acrylic Manufacturing … vs The Intelligence Inspector on 6 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
Poly Glass Acrylic Manufacturing … vs The Intelligence Inspector on 6 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 24726 of 2010(M)


1. POLY GLASS ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO.(P)
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,SQUAD NO.V,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :06/08/2010

 O R D E R
                   P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
                  ---------------------------
                     W.P(C) No.24726 of 2010-M
                  ----------------------------
              Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010.

                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a trader in Haryana, who imported some

goods from China to Kochi, from where it was being taken to

Haryna in vehicle bearing No.KL 08 AH 5156, when the same was

intercepted on the way on 22.7.2010 by the concerned respondent,

issuing Ext.P2 under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, doubting

evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as

specified therein.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even

though the factual position has been sought to be explained by

filing Ext.P3 objection, the same has not been properly considered

by the concerned respondent and the detention still continues,

which made the petitioner to approach this Court.

3. The learned Government Pleader, with reference to the

materials on record submits that, this is a clear instance of evasion

of tax, which made the respondents to demand security deposit vide

Ext.P2. The insinuating circumstances noted in Ext.P2 are also

W.P(C) No.24726 of 2010-M 2

specifically referred to by the learned Government Pleader.

However, this Court finds that this a matter which requires to be

adjudicated by the concerned authority, in accordance with the

relevant provisions of law.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the

petitioner is ready and willing to have the goods unloaded at the

place pointed out by the respondents, so as to have the vehicle

released, simultaneously pointing out that the petitioner shall meet

the necessary expenses in this regard.

5. In the above circumstances, there will be a direction to

cause the materials to be off-loaded at the proper place to be

pointed out by the respondents, forthwith, at any rate within two

days from the receipt of a copy of this judgment and the vehicle

shall be released accordingly. This will be without prejudice to the

right of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if

any, which shall be finalised, in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE

W.P(C) No.24726 of 2010-M 3

ab