AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext. P3 notice of detention issued u/s 47(2) of the KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein.
The petitioner is a dealer in Home Appliances. It is stated that in connection with promotional exercise, various items including Reebok Shoes, Reebok sun glasses, watches etc., which are to be given to the prospective customers as complementary items, were also being procured by the Company, which is being pursued strictly in conformity with the relevant provisions of law. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the only reason for detention stated in Ext.P3 is doubting whether the said items are included in the Registration Certificate of the Company dealing with Home Appliances. It is based on the said suspicion that security deposit has been demanded, which however cannot be factually correct, in view of specific description of the item as given on the ''face page'' of Ext.P2 (left bottom), submits the learned Counsel.
The learned Government Pleader submits on the basis of the materials on record that, Ext. P2 does not pertain to the goods referred to in Ext.P3, which is rather conceded from the part of the petitioner as the learned Counsel submits that Ext. P2 is only a ''specimen invoice'', wherein similar item- ''Atomic Watch Black'' was involved and that the goods were cleared having satisfied the genuineness in the transaction.
Going by the contents of Ext.P1 certificate of registration, it is revealed that, though the Company is dealing with various Home Appliances, various other items were subsequently included as per the endorsements dated 29.12.2008, 13.03.2009 and such other dates. Most of the above items prima facie do not confine to the term ''Home Appliance''.
In the above circumstances, this Court holds that the goods detained as per Ext. P3 shall be released to the petitioner forthwith on condition that the petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the relevant provisions of KVAT and CST Acts, executes a ''simple bond'' for the amount of security deposit shown in Ext.P3. But this will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if any and the same 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 the judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.