M RAMADOSS S/O MUNUSAMY Vs. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court raising grievance against detention of the vehicle and goods by the first respondent issuing Ext. P4 notice doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit in terms of Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that, he is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. TN 20 BR 3325, which was hired by the owner of the goods i.e. the additional 5th respondent (impleaded in the proceedings as per order dated 23.05.2012 in I.A. No. 6595 of 2012) for transporting a 'hydraulic breaker' for effecting necessary repairs by the manufactures situated outside the State in Chennai. In the course of transit, it was intercepted on 10.05.2012 by the first respondent and in spite of explaining the factual position, also producing the relevant documents, the detention continues, which hence is sought to be intercepted.

(3.) THE additional 5th respondent specifically contends that the goods were actually purchased from the manufacturer/dealer in Chennai and as per the conditions of supply, the necessary repairs have also to be effected by the supplier. It was in the said circumstances, that the above item was sought to be transported to the very same manufacturer/dealer at Chennai. THE factual position in this regard is revealed from the entries in Ext. P4 notice issued by the first respondent and the same is tally with those of Ext. P3 invoice issued by the manufacturer/dealer namely M/s Vev Ventures, Chennai, to whom the equipment is sought to be transported with supporting documents.