A M SHIHAB Vs. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a manufacturer and registered dealer under the KVAT Act sought to transport 'plywoods' in the lorry bearing No.TN 21 E 7428. When the vehicle was proceeding along Pattal -Perumbavoor-Kothamangalam route, it was intercepted by the respondent on 04.07.2012 (wrongly shown as 07.04.2012), and issued Ext.P5 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to an extent of Rs. 54,000/-(Rupees fifty four thousand). The respondent also issued Ext.P6 notice under Section 69(1) of the very same enactment, demanding an equal amount, in view of the existence of circumstances as contemplated therein. This is under challenge in this writ petition, preferred by the petitioner- consignor.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the observation of the respondent that the transportation was without any document is not correct or proper, as the petitioner had in fact satisfied advance tax in respect of the goods carried in the vehicle as borne by Ext.P4, wherein the number of the particular vehicle was also shown. The learned counsel also submits that the goods were actually sold to the consignee, whose particulars are given in Ext.P2 invoice and there was Ext.P3 delivery note as well. The said documents, however were not accepted by the respondents at the time of interception, which made the petitioner to approach this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing both the sides and on going through the materials on record, this Court observes that, at the time of interception, the respondent was not in a position to assess the nature of transaction, for the fact that the particulars of the consignor or consignee were not discernible and no document was there as noted in Ext.P5 itself; of which, column Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 12 are left blank.