H.S. Purushotha vs The Intelligence Inspector, The Sales Tax Officer and State of Kerala

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The petitioner is challenging the detention of the vehicles as well as the goods covered by Exts. P5 and P5 (a) notices issued u/s 47(2) of the KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein.

The insinuating circumstance shown in Exts. P5 and P5 (a) notices is that, absolutely no documents were there, as contemplated u/s 46(3) of the KVAT Act, so as to sustain the transport of the goods, which is stated as a notified commodity. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the said observation is wrong and that the goods were actually purchased from Kerala Forest Department on the strength of Ext. P2, wherein the tax liability of the petitioner has been clearly shown. Accordingly, the petitioner satisfied the entire amount towards the tax, as borne by Exts. P3 and P3(a) and goods were sought to be transported on the strength of Exts. P4 and P4 (a) Passes issued by the department. While so, the vehicles in which goods were being transported were intercepted by the first respondent on 28.7.2010 stating that, no documents were there in support of the transport, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition.

The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that, absolutely no objection was preferred offered from the part of the petitioner on issuing Exts. P5 and P5 (a) and that the petitioner has come before this Court moulding the case in a dubious manner, so as to sustain the transport. It is also pointed out that, Ext. P1 Certificate of Registration is in support of the registration of the petitioner under the ''Karnataka VAT Act'' and that the petitioner is not a registered dealer under the ''Kerala VAT Act''. The learned Government Pleader further submits that, since the commodity being a notified item, it should have been transported on the strength of a ''delivery note'' or else, if the material was of ''own use'', there should have been proper ''form 16''. In the instant case, neither the delivery note, nor form 16 was there, to sustain the transport and hence there was every reason for the first respondent to have doubted evasion of tax, demanding security deposit to the extent as specified.

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds considerable force in the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader. However, this Court does not intend to express anything on merits as this is a matter which requires to be considered and finalized in accordance with law by the appropriate authority, in the course of adjudication. For that reason, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods and vehicles any further and the same shall be released to the petitioner forthwith, on condition that, the petitioner satisfies the demand of security deposit in Exts. P5 and P5 (a), either in cash or by furnishing ''bank guarantee''. This will be without prejudice to the rights and interests of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if any and the same shall be finalized in accordance with law, 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.