MAMTA SAHU Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, who is stated as a registered dealer both under the KGST Act and the CST Act, on the rolls of the second respondent, is before this Court, being aggrieved of Ext.P4 notice issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to an extent of Rs. 57,140/-, which is under challenge.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had sold condemned D.G., Stabilizer scrap, scrap shelters etc. as per Ext.P2 invoice to a customer in Karnataka and it was accordingly, that the goods were being transported in the vehicle bearing Reg.No. KA-01- D/4668, when the same was intercepted on 27/07/2012, leading to Ext.P4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason shown in Ext.P4 is rather strange and is not sustainable under the relevant provisions of law, which reads as follows :

(3.) AFTER hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the matter requires to be adjudicated by way of appropriate proceedings. But, for that matter, the goods need not be detained any further and the same shall be released to the petitioner forthwith on satisfying 50% of the security deposit demanded in Ext.P4 and on executing a 'simple bond' without sureties for the balance amount. This will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings which shall be completed in accordane with law, as expeditiously as possible. In view of the specific nature of the contention raised by the petitioner, before releasing the goods as above, the first respondent shall conduct a physical verification with notice to the petitioner and prepare a proper inventory/mahazar as to the facts and figures. Writ petition is disposed of.