AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is concerned with the detention of goods under
Ext.P1. The goods detained by the Intelligence Inspector, Squad
No.2, Commercial Taxes, Kollam at Kottarakkara were electrical
goods, ie, 26 bundles of electrical goods valued at Rs.4,75,640/-.
No documents accompanied the goods. The consignor and
consignee were not known to the driver also.
The petitioner by Ext.P5 filed a reply contending that in
fact there were two consignments by one Novateur Electrical And
Digital Systems P. Ltd. from Ernakulam to Thiruvananthapuram
and Kollam. The consignment to Thiruvananthapuram contained
22 boxes of electrical goods and that to Kollam 26 boxes. Due to
a mistake committed by the staff of the petitioner, 26 boxes
intended for Kollam were delivered at Thiruvananthapuram and 22
were delivered at Kollam. The petitioner''s contention is that boxes
un loaded at the different places were being transferred to the
actual consignee.
Admittedly, the goods were seized when the transport
was made from Kollam to Thiruvananthapuram and boxes seized
were 26 in number. Even according to the petitioner, 26 boxes
were to be supplied to the dealer at Kollam and not at
Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner has stated in the reply
(Ext.P5) that in fact there are only 22 boxes detained and not 26.
This Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the fact, as
recorded on detention and inspection of the vehicle in Ext,P1,
especially when the Intelligence Inspector was not aware of the
contention of interchange of goods at the time of detention. The
explanation offered is not satisfactory.
The invoice by which the earlier transport was made is
dated 31.12.2016 and there is nothing produced to indicate that
the delivery was made at a wrong place of the two consignments.
The contention itself is specious, since the goods would not be
unloaded without verification with reference to the invoices. The
goods being electrical goods are evasion prone and admittedly
even the invoices of the earlier date, did not accompany the
goods. The transport effected without any documents
accompanying the goods, was rightly detained and security
deposit demanded. The notice of detention issued cannot be
interfered with, since the suspicion of evasion of tax is justified as
of now. In such circumstances, the petitioner not being a dealer
would be entitled to release the goods only on payment of security
deposit.