P K RAJEEV Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a registered dealer under the KVAT Act as borne by Ext.P1 Certificate of Registration and is the Manging Partner of an offset printing press. In tune with the requirements of the activity being pursued by the petitioner, it was decided to purchase some printing machinery from outside the State. It is stated, that such procurement was effected by availing the concessional rate of CST and the goods were transported in the vehicle bearing No.TN 31 Z 3166, on the strength of the invoice dated 26.7.2012. In the course of transit, it was intercepted by the third respondent issuing Ext.P2 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to an extent as specified therein which made the petitioner to approach this Court.

(2.) THE insinuation made in Ext.P2 is that the petitioner is not authorized to effect any interstate purchase and that no Ownership Certificate in form 16 accompanied the goods. The learned counsel also submits that the printing machinery stands very much included in Ext.P1 Certificate of Registration dated 26.6.2012. Though the petitioner tried to appraise the position, the concerned respondent did not accede to the same stating that, the factual position is not discernible from the official website.