R.A.Moidutty vs Intelligence Inspector on 6 April, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 11659 of 2010(F)


1. R.A.MOIDUTTY, A.K.STEELS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.II,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :06/04/2010

 O R D E R
                   P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
             ..............................................................................
                      W.P.(C) No. 11659 OF 2010
              .........................................................................
                         Dated this the 6th April, 2010



                                   J U D G M E N T

The goods being transported in the vehicles bearing Nos.

KL-10L-9963 and KL-11G-1119 were detained issuing Ext.P5

and P6 notices under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act pointing out

the defects, suspecting evasion of tax and thus demanding

security deposit as specified therein, which are under challenge in

this Writ Petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

reason stated in the impugned notices is rather technical in

nature and that the explanation offered from the part of the

petitioner, as borne by Exts. P7 and P8, has not been properly

appreciated by the concerned respondent.

3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent submits that the factual position, particularly in so

far as the mandatory requirement to prepare the delivery note

using ‘double sided carbon’ is admittedly not satisfied and that

W.P.(C) No. 11659 OF 2010

2

the reason pointed out as ‘ignorance of law’ vide Exts. P7 and P8

cannot be an excuse.

4. However, considering the facts and circumstances, this

Court finds that, it is not necessary to have the goods detained

any further and that the same can be released to the petitioner

on condition that the petitioner deposits ‘50%’ of the amount

covered by Exts.P5 and P6 and furnishes a ‘simple bond’ for the

balance amount. On satisfying the above requirements, the

vehicles as well as the goods shall be released to the petitioner

forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the rights and

interests of the respondent to pursue the adjudication

proceedings, if any, which exercise shall be completed, as as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk