SPANISO STUDIO Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court challenging the sustainability of Ext.P8 notice issued under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act, whereby the goods transported by the petitioner in the vehicle bearing No.. KL070 8370 were detained by the respondents, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, mainly having the field of operation at Calicut and the goods were actually imported at Cochin Port, from where it was being taken to the destination in Kottayam District, when the interception was made at Puthiyakavu near Thripunithura. THE learned counsel submits that, the petitioner has paid advance tax on 26.7.2010 itself, the date on which Ext. P1 invoice was raised and there occurred some delay at the hands of the authorities and the petitioner could take the goods only on 28.7.2010, the same having been cleared by the concerned authorities as borne by the endorsement on Ext. P7 made by the second respondent. It was accordingly, that the vehicle was proceeding to Kottayam, when it was intercepted on next day, in the early hours of 29.7.2010 at about 1.20 A.M. THE learned counsel further submits that, there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for having doubted the transaction, since the records have been prepared with specific reference to the container number, as reflected in Ext. P4 bills of entry, Ext. P5 invoice as well as in Ext. P6. It is also brought to the notice of this Court, with reference to Ext. P2, that the petitioner has already satisfied a sum of Rs. 34,42,650/- as 'advance tax' and this being the position, it is contended that the detention is without any justification.