RAFI R V Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE detention of the printing machine transported by the petitioner in the vehicle bearing No.MH 06AQ 7246 on the strength of Ext.P3 invoice, is under challenge.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he is a registered dealer both under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and CST Act as borne by Ext.P1. Pursuant to Ext.P2 purchase order made by the petitioner, the particular commodity was despatched and the same was transported on the strength of Ext.P3 invoice dated 23.7.2012 issued by the consignor situated outside the State. It was in the course of transit as above, that the same was intercepted by issuing Ext.P4 notice as aforesaid on 28.7.2012 doubting evasion of tax, demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein. Though the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply, the same did not turn to be fruitful and detention continues, which in turn sought to be intercepted in this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason shown by the 1st respondent is only a technical one and cannot be a proper ground for sustaining the detention.