PUNJ LOYD LTD Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a company and a registered dealer, both under the KVAT Act and CST Act on the rolls of the second respondent. It is stated that the petitioner has been awarded the work of Kochi- Koottanad-Bangalore-Mangalore pipeline project ( Phase II) by GAIL ( India) Ltd. as borne by Ext.P2 work order dated 12/01/2012. It is in connection with the execution of the said work, that the petitioner placed an order for plastic sheeting in rolls with adhesives from Belgium to complete the work using the best quality material. The said item was imported through Mumbai Port and it was being transported in the vehicle bearing Reg.No.MH 46 H 2772 after the customs clearance, accompanied by valid documents as contemplated under Section 46(3) of the KVAT Act including proper delivery note. It was in the course of transit as above, that the same was intercepted by issuing Ext.P3 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to an extent of Rs. 27,39,898/-with the following remarks :

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, though sought to explain the position by submitting Ext.P4 reply, it was even refused to be accepted by the first respondent, which made the petitioner to have it sent by registered post, as borne by Ext.P5 and also by way of e-mail. The arbitrary action and the callous inaction in respect of the issuance of notice and the non-consideration of the reply made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition for appropriate reliefs.

(3.) AFTER hearing both the sides and also considering the fact that the petitioner is mulcted with the duty to complete the project in a time bound manner, that the petitioner is a registered dealer and that the goods transported were pursuant to the import from a foreign country, carrying the necessary documents in support of the transportation, the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith on executing a 'simple bond' without sureties. This however will not stand in the way of the respondents to proceed with the adjudication proceedings, which shall be finalised in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that, this Court has not dealt with or expressed any opinion with regard to the rival contentions, as to the merits involved. Writ petition is disposed of.