TOPSY RAJAN MATHEW Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) IT was aggrieved by Ext.P8, a notice issued under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act, detaining a truck load of teakwood transported for the petitioner, this writ petition was filed. When the notice was issued, the petitioner filed Ext.P9 objections enclosing a certificate of the Village Officer. Subsequently, the notice was revised and Ext.P10 was issued.

(3.) HOWEVER , along with the writ petition, the petitioner has produced an approved plan of the building and also the building permit which show that the total plinth area of the building and other amenities proposed to be constructed by the petitioner is more than 1877 sq.m. Although it is true that the invoice, a copy of which is Ext.P7(2), and the delivery chalan Ext.P7(3), do not contain the name of the petitioner, the certificate of ownership Ext.P7(4) contains his name. Further, the value of the goods estimated mentioned in column 2(c) of the certificate of ownership and the value of the goods as shown in the invoice mentioned above are the same. In such circumstances, prima facie, I am inclined to think that there is no reason to doubt the bonafides of the transportation undertaken by the petitioner.