AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The petitioner, who is a civil contractor and an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent, as borne by Ext.P1 certificate of registration, purchased two Tipper vehicles from outside the State as per Ext.sP2 and P2(a) invoices dated 14.07.2012. The vehicles were being transported accordingly, on the strength of Exts.P3 Form 8 F and Exts.P4/P4(a) Form 16 certificates of ownership, when they were intercepted by the second respondent on 19.07.2012 issuing Ext.P5 notice u/s 47(2) of the KVAT Act doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein, which is under challenge in this writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is very much entitled to purchase the above vehicles from outside the State, more so, in view of the entries given in Ext.P1 certificate of registration. The insinuating circumstance as given in Ext.P5 is as follows :
Under Section 8(3)(b) of CST Act, 1956 read with Rule 13 of CST ( Registration & Turnvoer) Rule 1957, the Interstate purchase under concessional rate can be effected only for goods intended for use for materials, machinery in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power.
In the instant case Tipper (vehicle) is not intended for the purpose s mentioned above, hence evasion of tax suspected and SD demanded.
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the course pursued by the concerned respondent is per se wrong and illegal and hence is liable to be intercepted by this Court.
When the matter came up for consideration before this Court earlier, the petitioner was required file an affidavit as to the particulars of purchase effected by the petitioner after incorporation of the entry of ''Tipper vehicle'' in Ext.P1 certificate of registration. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed an affidavit on 23/07/2012, wherein the particulars of the purchase of ''nine'' vehicles bearing Reg.Nos. KL 40 D 8486, KL 40 D 8542, KL 40 E 8202, KL 40 E 9174, KL 40 E 259, KL 40 E 336, KL 40 F 2506, KL 40 F 2532 and KL 40 E 4585 are given and all of them were purchased by way of local purchases. It is stated that no other vehicle has been purchased by the petitioner in relation to the issue involved and thus seeks to have the vehicles released at the earliest.
Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. Considering the facts and circumstances and also in view of the course pursued by this Court as per Ext.P6 judgment in respect of the transportation effected by the petitioner involving a ''wheel loader'' purchased and owned by him, this Court finds it fit and proper to order release of the vehicle detained as per Ext.P5 forthwith, on executing a ''simple bond'' without sureties. This, however, shall be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondents to pursue adjudication proceedings, which shall be finalised in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
Writ petition is disposed of.