Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Prompt Engineers Solutions vs State Of Kerala on 3 October, 2016

Author: A.M.Shaffique

Bench: A.M.Shaffique

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                            PRESENT:

                         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

                 FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAYOF OCTOBER 2016/15TH ASWINA, 1938

                                   WP(C).No. 32616 of 2016 (B)
                                      ----------------------------

PETITIONER(S):
------------------------

                     PROMPT ENGINEERS SOLUTIONS, 20/277,
                    BEHIND ST. AUGUSTINE HIGH SCHOOL,
                    AROOR P.O., AROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
                    REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER VINOD V.

                     BY ADVS.SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR,
                              SRI.R.SREEHARI,
                              SRI.V.K.SREEJITH,
                              SRI.M.V.SURESH (KANNUR).
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------

          1.        STATE OF KERALA,
                    REP.BY THE SECRETARYTO GOVERNMENT,
                    TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
                    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

          2.        COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
                    DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, TAX TOWER,
                    KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

          3.        COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
                    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
                    KUTHIATHODU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.,

          4.        THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,
                    SQUAD NO.IV, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
                    EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-682 024.

          5.        THE VRL LOGISTICS LIMITED,
                    ELOOR, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
                    REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.


                     R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN.


                    THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
                    ON 07-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
                    FOLLOWING:

rs.

WP(C).No. 32616 of 2016 (B)


                                APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-


EXT.P1     COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE
           COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT TO THE PETITIONER'S FIRM.

EXT.P2     COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF IMPORTER-EXPORTER CODE (IFC)
           ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

EXT.P3     COPY OF THE TAX INVOICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S
           FIRM IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASE MADE AND THE
           TRANSACTION SLIP.

EXT.P4     COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
           TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT U/S. 47(2) OF THE KVAT ACT, 2005.

EXT.P5     COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONDATED 03/10/2016 SUBMITTED
           BY THE PETITIONER TOT HE FIRST RESPONDENT.


RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-       NIL.




                                                //TRUE COPY//


                                                P.S.TO JUDGE


rs.



                          A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
                       ===============
                     W.P. (C) No. 32616 of 2016
                   ==================

              Dated this, the 7th day of October, 2016


                            J U D G M E N T

Petitioner challenges Ext.P4 by which the goods had been detained and the petitioner is called upon to remit an amount of `1,31,350. In Ext.P4, it is stated that though the goods are consigned to the address of the petitioner at Alappuzha, the particulars show that shipment is to an address at Vyttila. It is observed that as per the KVATIS of the dealer, there is no branch or godown at Vyttila and therefore suspecting that the dealer is evading the subsequent local sale by delivering the goods to the dealer at the shipping address without issuing a sale invoice, there is attempt to evade tax. Apparently, this is a matter which requires adjudication by the competent authority.

2. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a registered dealer, it would be appropriate to release the goods on condition of the petitioner remitting 25% of the amount and furnishing simple bond for the balance amount.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I W.P(C) No.32616/16 -:2:- dispose of this writ petition as under:-

(i) The goods mentioned in Ext.P4 shall be released to the petitioner on the petitioner remitting 25% of the amount directed to be deposited and on furnishing a simple bond without sureties for the balance amount before the 4th respondent.
(ii) The 4th respondent shall complete the adjudication proceedings within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE Rp7/10/2016 //True Copy// P.S to Judge