Kerala High Court
Unknown vs By Senior Adv.Dr.K.B.Muhamed Kutty on 3 January, 2012
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2012/13TH POUSHA 1933
WPC.No. 35251 of 2011 (F)
--------------------------------
PETITIONER
SHAJI VARGHESE
S/O.VARGHESE .P.
PUTHANVILAYIL
ANANDAPALLY P.O.
ADOOR
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY SENIOR ADV.DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY
ADV.FIROZ
RESPONDENT(S)
1 THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR
COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT
COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST
WAYALAR - 678 624.
2 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
ADOOR - 691 523
3 THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY
JOINT REGIONAL TRNASPORT OFFICE
MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT
ADOOR 691 523
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03-01-2012 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JM
WPC NO. 35251 OF 2011
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
P1: COPY OF THE INVOICE DT. 17.12.2011 ISSUED BY JESSOP AND CO.
LTD. KOLKATA
P2: COPY OF LETTER DT. 26.12.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE
SECOND RESPONDENT ON 26.12.2011.
P3: COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 47 (2) OF THE KVAT ACT DT.
2812.2011 BEARING NO. OR 5050/9/11-12 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
P4: COPY OF IDENTITY CARD OF PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE ELECTION
COMMISSION OF INDIA
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
\\TRUE COPY\\
PA TO JUDGE
JM
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
.......................................................
W.P.(C).35251/2011
..............................................
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2012
JUDGMENT
Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P3 notice issued under the KVAT Act and the Rules detaining a Road Roller bearing registration No.KA-05 AB 7474. In Ext.P3 notice, the reason for detention has been stated thus:-
The consignee has brought in the 'Road Roller' specifying that its for self use using Form No.16. The consignee is not a registered dealer as per the KVAT Act, 2003. It is suspected that the consignee has brought in the above road roller for works contract and / transfer of right to use in Kerala. Hence evasion of tax suspected and security deposit demanded.
2. On that basis, petitioner has been called upon to pay Rs.3,44,387/- towards security deposit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detention is totally unjustified in view of the provisions contained under Section 47 of the Act. However, referring to Ext.P2, the learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner is bound to have W.P.(C).35251/11 2 his vehicle registered which he has not been done and therefore, detention is fully justified.
4. In my view, this is a matter which has to be adjudicated under Section 47 of the Act and that at present, the question is whether the detention is justified or not. Admittedly, petitioner is not a registered dealer and prima facie the grounds justifying detention have also been made out from what is stated in Ext.P3 itself. In such circumstances, I am not persuaded to hold that the detention is totally unjustified.
5. Be that as it may, I dispose of this writ petition directing adjudication as contemplated under Section 47 of the Act, and on the petitioner depositing 50% of the amount mentioned in Ext.P3 and furnishing bond without sureties for the balance amount, the vehicle in question will be released to the petitioner.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs