(1.) CONTENTION of the petitioner is that the machinery under detention was purchased by him on the basis of Ext.P1 tax invoice by paying CST at 2%, on the strength of 'C' Form and it was brought to state on 7.6.2011 by declaring in the border check post, as evidenced from Ext.P2 and P3. It is contended that the machinery is a capital goods, which has already been acquired by the petitioner and there is no necessity for any document to accompany with movement of such goods. Hence it is contended that the proceedings initiated under Section 47(2) is unsustainable.
(2.) LEARNED Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents pointed out that, at the time of interception there was no documents to show that the machinery belongs to the petitioner. On the other hand, it is stated that the driver of the vehicle had given a statement to the effect that the machinery was transported from M/s. Kunnatham Poymers, Odakkali to Chirangara Estate in Pathanamthitta district. It is further contended that there is no evidence to prove that the machinery detained is the very same machinery purchased by the petitioner and transported to the state by virtue of Ext.P1 to P3 documents. It is further stated that suspicion expressed by the detaining authority with respect to sale of the machinery within the state is reasonable. It is also pointed out that the time of detention is at 9.30 PM and the stand taken by the petitioner in the objection filed to the effect that the machinery was taken for repairs at Muvatupuzha could not be accepted.
(3.) THE petitioner will also file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit to the effect that he will not part with ownership and possession of the machinery in question till finalization of the enquiry. THE petitioner will also produce photo copies of title deeds and tax receipts with respect to immovable property if any owned and possessed by him.