C NARAYANA PODUVAL Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of the 1st respondent and is engaged in the trade of arecanut and pepper as borne by Ext.P1 certificate of registration. The petitioner sold certain quantity of arecanut which is described as "Kottadakka" to a dealer in Karnataka as per Ext.P2 invoice; of course after satisfying the advance tax as borne by Ext.P3 receipt and accompanied by Ext.P4 delivery note. In the course of transit, the goods were detained at Mutthanga and Ext.P5 notice was issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act doubting evasion of tax, observing that the actual commodity that was being transported was not Kottadakka, but 'Kaliyadakka' having a much higher value, thus demanding security deposit to an extent of Rs.1,92,000/- which forms the subject matter challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel submits that the commodity transported by the petitioner is 'Kottadakka' itself and in spite of filing an objection to Ext.P5 as borne by Ext.P6, the 2nd respondent stuck to his stand, which in turn is sought to be interfered in this writ petition. The learned counsel also seeks to place reliance on Ext.P7 and P7(a) photographs, to draw a distinction between the two different commodities. There is also a contention for the petitioner that the maximum liability if at all any, could only be doble the amount of tax sought to be evaded and as such, it can only be the differential portion, when the 2nd respondent observes that the commodity of 'Kaliyadakka' is having higher value of Rs.120 per kg. while the commodity described in the documents as 'Kottadakka' is having a value of only Rs.90 per kg.

(3.) IN the above facts and circumstances, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to release the goods detained as per Ext.P5 on satisfying 'double the tax liability' in respect of the deferential portion of the value estimated and actually shown in the documents.