MANOHARAN Vs. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings initiated under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act), on the basis of Ext.P5 notice, is under challenge in this writ petition. An Excavator (Tata Hitachi made) transported in a heavy vehicle bearing No:TN-04/M 2259 (Taurus Lorry) was intercepted by the 2nd respondent for the reason that no document such as tax invoice, departmental delivery note, certificate of ownership, etc. as required under the KVAT were was not accompanying with the transport. It was also noticed that inspite of the goods being brought from the state of Tamil Nadu the document which was accompanying the transport does not reveal any indication to the effect that the goods were declared at the border check post at Aryankavu. Even though it is claimed that the Excavator in question was brought for hire in execution of a work undertaken in Kerala, no rental agreement or work agreement was accompanied with the transport. Subsequent to the detention, the petitioner produced certain documents and after perusal of those documents the authority found that the alleged rental agreement as well as lease deed are not genuine and it could not be concluded that the machinery was brought in pursuance to those agreements. Under such circumstances payment of security was demanded.

(2.) According to the petitioners, the 1st petitioner is the owner of the Excavator and 2nd petitioner is the owner of the lorry in which it was transported. Case of the petitioners is that 1st petitioner by virtue of a lease deed had hired the machinery to one Sri.K.Abhilash, who in turn had entered into an agreement with a PWD Contractor to hire the machinery for executing certain civil works. It is contended that the transport was bonafide and the machinery was not intended for sale within the state of Kerala.

(3.) Heard, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents. It is pointed out that none of the documents required under the KVAT Act was accompanying the transport. It is further stated that even assuming that the machinery was brought for execution of any contract work, there is liability for payment of tax. Further, it was contended that the documents produced, such as the lease deed and the hire agreement are evidently concocted.