A A FRANCIS Vs. INTELLGIENCE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of Electrical Panel Boards transported by him from Erankulam to Kayamkulam, which is allegedly consigned to M/s.Southern Railway for the purpose of erecting it at Kayamkulam Railway Station. Ext.P5 is the notice issued under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act). It is revealed that at the time of interception the consignment was not accompanied with any documents such as, invoices or delivery note or delivery challan, issued either by the consignor or the consignee. Since no valid documents as required under Section 46(3) of the KVAT Act was accompanying the transport and since the registration particulars of the consignor or the consignee was not available, suspecting evasion of payment of tax Security Deposit was demanded.

(2.) According to the petitioner he is a contractor executing work on behalf of M/s.Southern Railway. Ext.P6 letter of the Senior Section Engineer of Southern Railway which was available with the transport will clearly indicate that the goods in question was transported from Ernakulam to Kayamkulam Railway Station, in execution of the electrical contract work undertaken by the petitioner on behalf of the the Southern Railway. Ext.P6 refers to the contract agreement entered between the petitioner and the railway, dated 24.12.2007. The petitioner had further produced Ext.P7 Gate Pass as well as Ext.P8 letter of the Senior Section Engineer, which will reveal that 'Electric Panel Board' was transported pursuant to the contract undertaken by the petitioner, for the purpose of installation at the Railway Station at Kayamkulam. Ext.P9 is produced to show that the petitioner is a work contractor having registration under the provisions of the KVAT Act and he had filed returns for the period from April to June 2010. Under such circumstances, contention of the petitioner is that the transport was genuine and there was no attempt in evasion of payment of tax.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondent submitted that the goods were detained since there was no proper documents accompanied with the transport, as required under Section 46(3) of the KVAT Act. Even the alleged agreement (contract) was not produced by the petitioner nor any delivery note which was required for the purpose of transport of the goods for own use, were not available along with the goods. Learned Government Pleader also submitted that genuineness of the Gate Pass produced as Ext.P7 itself is doubtful since there is discrepancy in the date of such documents. Therefore the contention is that the suspicion raised regarding genuineness of the transport is reasonable and the petitioner should be insisted for payment of the security deposit.