9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Petition dismissed. - W.P.(C)Nos. 19966 and 21557 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2015 - Anil K. Narendran, J. Smt. K. Latha for the petitioner Liju V. Stephen, Gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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. 2.3. By order dated 02.07.2015, this Court granted an interim direction to release the goods detained on executing a simple bond. W.P.(C)No.21557 of 2015:- 3.1. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner purchased some chemicals (lab chemicals) from M/s.LGC Promochem, Bangalore, vide Ext.P3A invoice dated 30.06.2015 and the goods were transported to Kochi on the strength of Ext.P3B certificate of ownership in Form No.16 under the KVAT Rules, on a declaration that the goods are for own use. In Ext.P3B certificate of ownership dated 06.07.2015, the value of the goods is estimated at 33,814/-. On 11.07.2015, ₹ at 11.15 hrs. the goods in question were intercepted by the 2nd respondent at the Commercial Tax Check Post, Muthan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18) of Rule 58 of the KVAT Rules, every person, other than a registered dealer, who consigns goods by any vehicle or vessel, where the transport is not in pursuance of a sale, shall issue a certificate of ownership in Form No.16. 7. Section 47 of the KVAT Act deals with procedure for inspection of goods in transit. Sub-section (1) of Section 47 mandates that, the driver or other person in charge of a vehicle shall stop the vehicle at any place within a notified area when so required by the officer in charge of that notified area, or at any other place when so required by any officer empowered by the Government in that behalf, for the purpose of enabling such officer to verify the documents required by sub-section (3) of section 46 to be in the possession of the person transporting the goods and to satisfy himself that there is no evasion of tax. Going by sub-section (2) of Section 47, if such officer has reason to suspect that the goods under transport are not covered by proper and genuine documents, in cases where such documents are necessary, or that any person transporting the goods is attempting to evade payment of the tax due under the KVAT Act, he may, for reasons to be re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded, as may be estimated by such officer. 10. The provisions under Section 47 of the KVAT Act, which deals with procedure for inspection of goods in transit, are intended to prevent evasion of tax payable under the Act. The inspection conducted under sub-section (1) of Section 47 of the Act, by the officer in charge of the notified area or by any officer empowered by the Government in that behalf, is for the purpose of enabling such officer to verify the documents required by sub W. P.(C) Nos. 19966 and 21557 of 2015 10 section (3) of section 46 to be in the possession of the person transporting the goods and to satisfy himself that there is no evasion of tax. On such inspection, if such officer has reason to suspect that the goods under transport are not covered by proper and genuine documents, in cases where such documents are necessary, or that any person transporting the goods is attempting to evade payment of the tax due under the KVAT Act, he may for reasons to be recorded in writing, detain the goods in exercise of his powers under sub-section (2) of Section 47 of the Act and shall allow the same to be transported only on the owner of the goods or his representative or th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in K .G.Thommen v. State of Kerala (1994 KLJ (Tax Cases) 477) would contend that, security deposit can be collected only in cases where there are clear attempts for evasion of tax. In K.G.Thommen's case (supra), the Division Bench was considering the legality of an order passed under sub-section (4) of Section 29A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, imposing penalty and it was held that, in order to levy penalty under sub-section (4) of Section 29A of the said Act, the Officer should positively find that there has been an attempt to evade tax due under the said Act. In that context, the Division Bench held that, the mere fact that the transportation of the goods was not accompanied by proper documents by itself will not be sufficient to attract levy of penalty under sub-section (4) of Section 29A of the said Act and it is essential that the Officer should find that there has been an attempt to evade tax due under the said Act and that should be based on proper material. Therefore, the judgment of this Court in K.G.Thommen's case (supra) will not any manner support the case of the petitioner. 14. Going by the averments in W.P.(C)No.19966 of 2015, the petitioner h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner 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. 15. By order dated 02.07.2015 in W.P.(C)No.19966 of 2015, this Court granted an interim direction to release the goods detained vide Ext.P4 detention notice in that case, on the petitioner executing a simple bond. Similarly, by order dated 16.07.2015 in W.P.(C)No.21557 of 2015, this Court granted an interim order directing release of the goods detained vide Ext.P4 detention notice in that case, on the petitioner executing a simple bond. Since the entire goods detained vide Ext.P4 detention notices in both writ petitions had already been released on the petitioner executing simple bond, the question whether the petitioner is entitled for release of the goods detained vide Ext.P4 detention notices unconditionally, no more survives. 16. In the result, the challenge made against Ext.P4 detention notices in these writ petitions stands rejected. Within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
