ANIL KUMAR Vs. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of the goods carriage bearing No. KL 10F 2772. According to the petitioner, the said vehicle was given on hire for transporting certain items of fire-works like crackers, sparklers etc. purchased by the concerned dealers in Kerala (whose particulars have been given Ext. P1) from the consignor at Sivakashi. The goods were transported on the strength of valid documents as contemplated under Section 46 (3) of the KVAT Act. When the vehicle entered the check post at Walayar, the 'advance tax' in respect of the commodities was also satisfied, as borne by Ext. P1. Immediately thereafter, the vehicle and goods were intercepted by the first respondent issuing Ext. P2 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit in view of the 'under valuation' noted therein.

(2.) THE petitioner contends that the owners/consginees of the goods (whose particulars have been given in Ext. P1) had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 8613 of 2012. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, an interim order was passed to release the goods detained, on furnishing 'Bank Guarantee' from a nationalized Bank, for the amount demanded. It is pointed out that the Bank Guarantee was not furnished, upon which, the said writ petition was disposed of on 11.04.2012 (a copy of the judgment has been produced as Ext. Ext. P4 along with I.A. No. 8260 of 2012), with a direction to the concerned authority to finalize the adjudication proceedings within two weeks. Pursuant to the above judgment, the competent authority finalized the adjudication proceedings and passed Ext. P3 order dated 25.04.2012, holding that, there was an attempt to evade tax and imposed penalty at different extents upon the different owners/consignees. It was also observed that the above liability coming to a total of Rs.8,58,472/- shall be paid by the dealers "and/or" by the owner of the lorry, as specified in the demand notice issued, which made the petitioner to approach this Court seeking for immediate intervention.

(3.) IN the above facts and circumstances, the finding arrived at by the adjudicating authority in Ext. P3, to the extent it mulcts the liability upon the owner/driver of the lorry, is not correct or sustainable and it is set aside. As a natural consequence, notice of demand raised on the petitioner has also to go. It is ordered accordingly. However it can be sought to be realized from the others concerned and Ext. P3 is sustained in all other respects, with regard to the liability fixed on the dealers/consignees.