2013 (3) TMI 182 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of a Fork lift - the documents verified show that the sale is from Cochin and therefore, there was no reason to effect sale against C-Form - Held that - Purchase order was placed at the Pune Office of the manufacturer and that it was from Pune, the sale in question was effected. Certificate of registration did not authorize to purchase the machinery in question - Ext.P4 is the certificate of registration. Although machinery and parts are also authorized to be dealt with by the petitioner, it is a matter to be enquired into whether the description of the goods will cover the nature of the machinery. Therefore, in any event, adjudication as contemplated under Section 47 of the KVAT Act is warranted - direct that pending such adjudication, Fork lift detained shall be released to the petitioner subject to the petitioner furnishing Bank guarantee for the security demanded.

Summary

Issues: Detention of a Fork lift challenged based on irregularities in sale documentation; Allegations of sale from Cochin against C-Form and missing TIN number in invoice; Allegation regarding certificate of registration not authorizing purchase of machinery.

Detention of Forklift:
The judgment addresses the challenge to the detention of a Fork lift based on irregularities in the documentation. The detention was ordered due to allegations that the sale was from Cochin against C-Form and that the TIN number was missing in the invoice. However, the petitioner argued that the sale was actually from Pune, as evidenced by the purchase order from the Pune office of the manufacturer and the invoice raised from Pune. The court found merit in the petitioner's contention and accepted it for the time being.

Certificate of Registration Authorization:
Another issue raised was that the certificate of registration did not authorize the purchase of the machinery in question. Despite the petitioner being authorized to deal with machinery and parts, it was unclear whether the description of the goods covered the nature of the machinery. The judgment highlighted that adjudication under Section 47 of the KVAT Act was necessary to determine the validity of the purchase in question.

Judgment and Relief:
In light of the arguments presented, the court directed the release of the detained Fork lift to the petitioner pending adjudication. The release was subject to the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the security demanded in the detention order. The writ petition was disposed of based on these considerations, providing relief to the petitioner while acknowledging the need for further adjudication under the relevant legal provisions.