1989 (9) TMI 368 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Detention of goods at check-post for suspected tax evasion due to unsigned declaration - Validity of defective declaration - Word consignor - defect noted in the notice is the declaration in form 27B has not been signed by the consignor - HELD THAT - The consignor in the context therefore can only mean the one who consigns the goods. May be that the consignor has purchased the goods from a manufacturer or a person who is dealing in the said goods. That does not mean that the manufacturer or the person who deals in the goods will be the consignor unless it be that they themselves send the goods. The department has no case that it was the distillery which sent the goods. The distillery therefore cannot be said to be the consignor . The petitioners on the other hand are the consignor going by the admitted facts. The declaration therefore is not defective. If this was the only ground on which the goods happened to be detained then there was no need for a further investigation as provided for under section 29A(4). But that is not the position. Petitions disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention of goods at check-post for suspected tax evasion due to unsigned declaration.
2. Interpretation of the term "consignor" under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act.
3. Direction for further investigation by the authority concerned.
4. Availability of alternate remedy through filing an appeal before the appellate authority.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners purchased goods from Pondicherry Distilleries and were transporting them to Mahe when the goods were detained at a check-post in Kerala due to a defect in the declaration form 27B, which was not signed by the consignor, leading to suspicion of tax evasion.

2. The term "consignor" was interpreted by the court based on legal principles and dictionary definitions, concluding that the consignor is the one who sends or consigns the goods, not necessarily the manufacturer or seller. In this case, the petitioners, who booked the vehicle for transportation, were considered the consignors as they were the ones sending the goods.

3. While the goods were released following the court's directions, the court noted the need for further investigation into other aspects related to the case. The court directed the concerned authority to conduct a detailed investigation promptly, within two months from the date of the judgment, to address these unresolved matters.

4. The court highlighted that if the petitioners are dissatisfied with the authority's final decision after the investigation, they have the right to challenge it by filing an appeal before the appellate authority under section 34 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, providing them with an effective alternate remedy. The original petitions were disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the availability of this legal recourse to the petitioners.