AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved of the detention of the transport vehicle bearing No. KL 07 AW 4345 as per Ext.P3 notice issued u/s 47(2) of the KVAT Act, observing that the concerned Company is not a registered dealer in KVAT Act, thus doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the observation made by the concerned respondent in Ext.P3 is not true or correct and that the position has been explained as given in Ext.P4 reply, stating that the petitioner is a registered dealer, having assigned TIN as on 1.5.2010. The learned Counsel placed reliance on Ext.P1 certificate of registration dated 15.5.2010.
True, the certificate of registration is dated 15.5.2010, i.e., on the next day of Ext.P2 invoice dated 14.5.2010. But the registration certificate clearly shows that the registration has been given with effect from 1.5.2010 as pointed out by the petitioner in Ext.P4. This being the position, there is absolutely no rhyme or reason on the part of the respondent to have detained the vehicle/goods; submits the learned Counsel.
Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
Considering the materials on record, this Court finds that there is considerable force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the said circumstances, this Court finds that further detention is likely to cause loss to the petitioner and the vehicle/goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith, on executing a ''simple bond'' for the amount shown as security deposit in Ext.P3 notice.
Ext.P3 has necessarily to be taken to logical conclusion by pursuing the adjudication proceedings and this shall be finalised in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.