High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

ABDUL SALAM vs THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 5 May 2017 · Citation: (2017) 05 KL CK 0043

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anu Sivaraman
CASE NUMBER
15047 of 2017 (E)

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

41 paragraphs · 339 words
1.

The petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the Kerala

Value Added Tax Act, 2003, is aggrieved by Ext.P1 notice issued to

him, detaining the goods and vehicle. The petitioner is aggrieved

by the insistence of the respondents that he must pay the security

deposit demanded in the detention notice as a condition for

release of the goods and vehicle.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Pleader.

3.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the

case and the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose of the

writ petition with the following directions:

i. A perusal of Exhibit P1 detention notice would

indicate that the consignment that was

transported was 19000 kg coconut oil. The driver

produced a bill but the inspecting authority found

that the inter state tax invoice mentions about 19

MT of coconut oil and the dealer might have

effected unaccounted sale without raising tax

invoice. It was for this reason that the vehicle was

detained on the apprehension of the respondents that there was a possible evasion of tax. The

detention of the vehicle by the respondents

cannot, therefore, be said to be unjustified.

ii. Taking note of the fact, however, that the

petitioner is a registered dealer and that the

transportation of the goods was duly accompanied

by the documents prescribed under the KVAT Act,

I direct the 1st respondent to release the

consignment of goods and the vehicle subject to

the petitioner paying 50% of the security deposit

demanded in Exhibit P1 notice for the same, and

executing a simple bond without sureties before

the said respondent, for the balance amount

demanded in Exhibit P1 notice.

iii. The respondents shall thereafter transmit the files

to the adjudicating authority who shall adjudicate

the matter and pass orders, after hearing the

petitioner, within two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

iv. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this

judgment and a copy of the writ petition before

the respondents.