IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27275 of 2010(H)
1. RANI GLASS HOUSE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :02/09/2010
O R D E R
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
W.P.(C) No. 27275 of 2010
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of transport of
one consignment of ‘Float Glass’ purchased from
Sriperumbudur in the State of Tamil Nadu.
2. Ext.P3 is the notice issued under section 472(2) of
the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (for short the Act) with
respect to the detention. The defects noted in Ext.P3 is that,
on verification it was revealed that the consignment was
carrying Float Glass, which is an item notified for payment
of advance tax. But the transport was not accompanied by
any proof regarding payment of advance tax and it was
revealed that there was failure in payment of advance tax.
Hence, genuineness of the transport and attempt at evasion
of payment of tax was suspected.
3. According to the petitioner, all the required
documents were accompanying to the transport and
payment of advance tax could not be effected because of the
W.P.(C) No. 27275/2010 2
intervening holidays prior to the date of detention. It is
contended that on the simple ground of non-payment of
advance tax, the goods ought not to have been detained and
the authority could have demanded payment of advance tax
for permitting onward transport. On the other hand, learned
Government Pleader contends that only on physical
verification of the goods it was revealed that the item
covered under the consignment is one notified for payment
of advance tax. Further, there is facility available in the
check post itself for payment of advance tax, which was not
availed by the transporter. Hence, attempt of evasion of tax
is reasonably suspected, is the contention.
4. Whether there was any attempt of evasion of tax
and as to whether the petitioner is liable to be imposed with
penalty under section 47(6) of the Act are matters which
need be decided on completion of adjudication. At present I
am concerned only with release of the goods, pending
finalization of the adjudication. Since the defect pointed out
is solely with respect to the non-payment of advance tax, I
W.P.(C) No. 27275/2010 3
am of the opinion that the goods can be released on the
petitioner making payment of advance tax, without
prejudice to finalization of the proceedings under section 47
(2) of the Act and on furnishing security for the amount
demanded under Ext.P3.
5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of
directing the respondent to release the goods along with
vehicle detained under Ext.P3, on the petitioner remitting
advance tax with respect to the goods under transport and
also furnishing a bond as provided under the KVAT Act and
Rules, without sureties, for the amount of security
demanded.
6. The competent authority under section 47(2) of the
Act is directed to expedite adjudication proceedings and to
finalize the same as early as possible, at any rate within a
period of two months from the date of release of the goods.
C. K. ABDUL REHIM,
JUDGE.
mn.