Kerala High Court
M/S. Jaihind Traders vs The Assistant Commissioner on 20 December, 2013
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAATERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
FRIDAY,THE 20TH DAYOF DECEMBER 2013/29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
WP(C).No. 31777 of 2013 (V)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
--------------------------
M/S. JAIHIND TRADERS,
29/621 K, JAIN TOWERS,
VYTTILA, KOCHI-19, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER, MAHENDRAKUMAR JAIN
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V.MENON
SMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
SPECIAL CIRCLE,
MATTANCHERRY ATALUVA- 683 101
2. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,
COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST.
AMARAVILA -695 122
R BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBAANNAMMA EAPEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 31777 of 2013 (V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
EXT.P1 : COPY OF ADVANCETAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAXES
DEPARTMENT
EXT.P2 : COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P3 : COPY OF NOTICE IN FORM NO.17A UNDER SECTION 47(2) ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.ATO JUDGE
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.31777 of 2013
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The vehicle bearing No.TN-58/M-7290 transporting the goods belonging to the petitioner was intercepted at the check post by issuing Ext.P3 notice under Section 47(2) of the VAT Act doubting evasion of tax and in turn demanding security deposit of `64,447/- and also an advance tax of `32,223/-. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the writ petition stating that the petitioner is not liable to satisfy the amount and hence immediate intervention is sought for.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent as well, who submits that the 'advance tax' stated as satisfied by the petitioner in the course of submission made across the Bar is actually in respect of the previous transaction and that, making use of the same documents, the petitioner attempting to bring the goods again, thus leading to the interception vide Ext.P3.
3. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the issue is liable to be adjudicated by way of appropriate proceedings. For that, there is no need to detain the goods any more and the same shall be released to the petitioner subject to the satisfaction of a sum of `32,223/- and on W.P.(C)No.31777 of 2013 2 furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of `64,447/- forthwith. The adjudication proceedings shall be finalised, at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
AV