H S PURUSHOTHA Vs. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is challenging the detention of the vehicles as well as the goods covered by Exts. P5 and P5 (a) notices issued under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein.

(2.) THE insinuating circumstance shown in Exts. P5 and P5 (a) notices is that, absolutely no documents were there, as contemplated under Section 46 (3) of the KVAT Act, so as to sustain the transport of the goods, which is stated as a notified commodity. THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the said observation is wrong and that the goods were actually purchased from Kerala Forest Department on the strength of Ext. P2, wherein the tax liability of the petitioner has been clearly shown. Accordingly, the petitioner satisfied the entire amount towards the tax, as borne by Exts. P3 and P3(a) and goods were sought to be transported on the strength of Exts. P4 and P4 (a) Passes issued by the department. While so, the vehicles in which goods were being transported were intercepted by the first respondent on 28.7.2010 stating that, no documents were there in support of the transport, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition.