2013 (2) TMI 636 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of a consignment of scientific equipments - KVAT Act - case of the petitioner that they are not a dealer but are only engaged in diagnostic services and in a similar situation that another consignment was detained, this Court ordered the goods release - Held that - The respondent is directed to release the vehicle and goods on satisfying the requirement besides executing a personal bond for the requisite amount as shown in Ext.P2. Petitioner will be free to file a statement of objection in response to Ext.P2 and it will be without prejudice to the right and liberties of the departmental authorities to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which however shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Summary

Issues Involved: Challenge to detention of consignment under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act based on absence of statutory documents; Claim of not being a dealer but engaged in diagnostic services; Comparison to a previous judgment ordering release of goods in a similar situation.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the detention of a consignment of scientific equipments under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act due to the absence of statutory documents required for transporting the goods. The petitioner argued that they are not a dealer under the Act but are solely engaged in diagnostic services. Reference was made to a previous judgment (Ext.P7) where a similar situation led to the release of goods. The court acknowledged the similarity of contentions with the previous case and issued directions for the release of the vehicle and goods upon satisfying certain requirements, including executing a personal bond for the requisite amount as shown in Ext.P2.

2. The court emphasized that the respondent should release the goods and vehicle after the petitioner fulfills the specified requirements. The petitioner was granted the liberty to file a statement of objection in response to Ext.P2 without prejudicing the rights of the departmental authorities to pursue adjudication proceedings. The court directed that the adjudication process related to the detention of the consignment (Ext.P4) should be completed promptly, and in the interim, the goods and vehicle would be released subject to the petitioner executing a personal bond for the security demanded in Ext.P4.

3. The writ petition was disposed of based on the directions issued, ensuring the expeditious completion of the adjudication process and the release of the goods and vehicle. The judgment highlighted the importance of addressing the issue promptly while safeguarding the rights of both the petitioner and the departmental authorities involved. The court's decision aimed to balance the interests of all parties and ensure a fair resolution within a specified timeline.