Kerala High Court
M.Ramadoss vs Intelligence Inspector
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2012/10TH JYAISHTA 1934
WP(C).No. 11578 of 2012 (V)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
M.RAMADOSS
S/O MUNUSAMY 3/256, M.G.R. NAGAR, VARADARAJAPURAM
POONAMALLY TALUK, CHENNAI 602102
BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
RESPONDENTS:
--------------
1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR
SQUARD NO III, THRISSUR
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES MINI CIVIL STATION
IRINJALAKKUDA 680121
2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST,
WALAYAR 678624
3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
COMMERICAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR 678624
4. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER OFG COMMERCIAL TAXES
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001
*ADDL. R5 THE PROPRIETOR, M/S AL-AMEEN CRUSHER UNIT,
4/93, A, B MELMURI, MALAPPURAM, PIN 676551
(impleaded as per order dated 23.05.2012 in I.A. 6595/2012)
R1 TO R4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
ADDL. R5 BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER
BY ADV. SRI.ABDUL MAJEED.N
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-
05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 11578 of 2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE
VEHICLE
EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TIN VERIFICATION RESULT FROM THE
INTERNET
EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO 118 DATED 11-12-2009
EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 47(2) OF KERALAL VALUE
ADDED TAX ACT
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : nil
/True copy/
P.A. to Judge
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P(C) No. 11578 of 2012
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 31st day of May, 2012
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court raising grievance against detention of the vehicle and goods by the first respondent issuing Ext. P4 notice doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit in terms of Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, he is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. TN 20 BR 3325, which was hired by the owner of the goods i.e. the additional 5th respondent (impleaded in the proceedings as per order dated 23.05.2012 in I.A. No. 6595 of 2012) for transporting a 'hydraulic breaker' for effecting necessary repairs by the manufactures situated outside the State in Chennai. In the course of transit, it was intercepted on 10.05.2012 by the first respondent and in spite of explaining the factual position, also producing the relevant documents, the detention continues, which hence is sought to be intercepted.
W.P.(C) No. 11578 of 2012 : 2 :
3. The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that there were no valid documents as contemplated under the relevant provisions of law, in support of the transportation. It is stated that, there were no documents to support the transportation/entry to the State of Kerala, which according to the petitioner is wrong and per verse and reliance is also sought to be placed on Ext. P3 invoice number 118 dated 11.12.2009 issued by the manufacturer/dealer in Chennai, in the name of the additional 5th respondent/owner of the equipment. The said invoice also reflects the central sales tax paid at the rate of 2 % and also bears seal of the taxation authorities at the check post at Walayar.
4. The learned Government Pleader however submits that the document produced before the concerned authority did not bear the seal of the check post authorities, which made the said respondent to make an observation as given in Ext. P4. However, pursuant to the observations made by this W.P.(C) No. 11578 of 2012 : 3 : Court, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 6595 of 2012 seeking to implead the additional 5th respondent i.e. owner of the goods who hired the lorry and on service of notice, the said respondent has entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit.
5. The additional 5th respondent specifically contends that the goods were actually purchased from the manufacturer/dealer in Chennai and as per the conditions of supply, the necessary repairs have also to be effected by the supplier. It was in the said circumstances, that the above item was sought to be transported to the very same manufacturer/dealer at Chennai. The factual position in this regard is revealed from the entries in Ext. P4 notice issued by the first respondent and the same is tally with those of Ext. P3 invoice issued by the manufacturer/dealer namely M/s Vev Ventures, Chennai, to whom the equipment is sought to be transported with supporting documents.
6. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that W.P.(C) No. 11578 of 2012 : 4 : the vehicle as well as the goods shall be released to the petitioner, on condition that, 'simple bonds' are executed by the petitioner and the additional 5th respondent (who is the registered dealer within the State) as prescribed, to the satisfaction of the respondents. This will be without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to proceed with the adjudication proceedings against the petitioner as well as the additional 5th respondent, who is a registered dealer in the State, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The undertaking given by the learned counsel for the additional 5th respondent that he will co-operate with the adjudication proceedings is recorded. The respondents are directed to finalize the adjudication proceedings, pursuant to Ext. P4, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd