BIJU JOHN Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 'batteries' being transported by the petitioner in the vehicle bearing No. KL.40B/1501 from Ernakulam to the consignee at Thiruvananthapuram on the strength of Ext. P2 invoice, were detained by the respondents on 01.06.2012 at about 4.35 p.m. issuing Ext.P3 notice under Section 47(2) KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as stipulated therein. THE reason stated in Ext. P3 is that the actual date of invoice is 31.05.2012, whereas interception was made at a place by name Ezhukone near Kottarakkara on 01.06.2012, which created some doubts in the minds of the detaining authorities, as to the possibility of evasion of tax and involvement of multiple transportation on the basis of same set of documents.

(2.) HEARD the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that the story put forth by the petitioner referring to the alleged bursting of tyre of the vehicle cannot be swallowed without a pinch of salt, obviously for the reason that the materials on record do not reconcile with each other.

(3.) THE writ petition is disposed of.