Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.1 Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner purchased some chemicals and process pumps (lab chemicals) from M/s.Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore and the goods were transported to Kochi on the strength of Ext.P3 certificate of ownership in Form No.16 under the KVAT Rules, on a declaration that the goods are for own use.

In Ext.P3 certificate of ownership dated 9.06.2015, the value of the goods is estimated at 18,342/-. On 11.06.2015, at 19.50 hrs. the goods in question were intercepted by the 2nd respondent at the Commercial Tax Check Post, Muthanga and the petitioner was issued with Ext.P4 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, to show cause, if any, against the proposed detention of goods together with supporting evidence, in original, or to remit the security deposit of 2,210/-.

2.2. The reason stated for detention of goods is that, the consignee is not a registered dealer under the KVAT Act. So evasion of tax is suspected and hence security deposit demanded. It is aggrieved by Ext.P4 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 notice and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents including all check post authorities not to detain the goods of the petitioner for want of registration under the KVAT Act, as the petitioner is only a drug and food testing laboratory, which purchases goods from other States on the strength of online Form No.16, which itself proves that the goods are purchased by the petitioner for own use. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to release the goods detained as per Ext.P4 unconditionally.

3.2. The reason stated for detention of goods is that, the item chemicals and process pumps are not considered for own use purpose under the KVAT Act. Hence security deposit demanded. It is aggrieved by Ext.P4 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 notice and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents including all check post authorities not to detain the goods of the petitioner for want of registration under the KVAT Act, as the petitioner is only a drug and food testing laboratory, which purchases goods from other States on the strength of online Form No.16, which itself proves that the goods are purchased by the petitioner for own use. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to release the goods detained as per Ext.P4 unconditionally.

14. Going by the averments in W.P.(C)No.19966 of 2015, the petitioner had purchased some chemicals and process pumps (lab chemicals) from Bangalore and the said goods transported on the strength of Ext.P3 declaration made in Form No.16 were illegally detained and security deposit demanded by the 2nd respondent vide Ext.P4 notice on the ground that the petitioner is not a registered dealer under the KVAT Act and hence evasion of tax is suspected. The invoice relating to purchase of the goods detained in Ext.P4 notice is not on record. Similarly, the averments in W.P.(C)No.21557 of 2015 are to the effect that, the petitioner had purchased some chemicals (lab chemicals) from Bangalore vide Ext.P3A invoice and the said goods transported on the strength of Ext.P3B declaration made in Form No.16 were illegally detained and security deposit demanded by the 2nd respondent vide Ext.P4 notice on the ground that, the items chemicals and process pumps are not considered for own use under the KVAT Act. The petitioner would also contend that, while making Ext.P3A online declaration in Form No.16, the description of the goods are given as 'chemical and process pumps lab chemicals' since there was no option to declare it as 'lab chemicals' alone. The pleadings and materials on record do not indicate that, the exercise of power by the 2nd respondent in these writ petitions, while issuing Ext.P4 dentition notices under sub-section (2) of Section 47 of the Act, is vitiated in any manner. As I have already held, the officer in charge of the notified area or the empowered officer can detain the goods under transit covered by a certificate of ownership in Form No.16, if he has reason to suspect that the goods are transported into the State by persons other than registered dealers on the pretext of 'own use'. When the 2nd respondent in these writ petitions has ample power by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 47 of the KVAT Act to intercept the goods in transit and demand security, if he has reason to suspect that the petitioner is attempting to evade payment of the tax due under the said Act, the issuance of Ext.P4 detention notices cannot, in any way, be termed as an act done without any authority of law, warranting an interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Merely for the reason that the goods are transported into the State on the strength of declarations made in Form No.16, the petitioner is not legally entitled for an order restraining the respondents and all check post authorities in the State from detaining such goods for want of registration under the KVAT Act. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for in these writ petitions.