SAURASHTRA ROADWAYS REPRESENTED Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the parcel/courier/transporting and clearing agencies [hereinafter referred to as "transporting agency"] functioning within the State are liable for registration under Section 15 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, is the question that arises in the aforesaid cases. The writ petitions are filed by a transporting agency challenging the notices issued based on Circular 33 of 2006, threatening penalty for non-registration and the subsequent issuance of registration.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that a transporting agency does not come under the definition of "dealer" under sub-clause (xv) of Section 2 or the non-obstante clause under sub-section(2) of Section 15 and hence would not be obliged to obtain registration under Section 15 of the Act. The petitioner does not however, seek to resile from its commitment under Section 52, wherein inter alia, a transporting agency has to submit returns and information as prescribed under Rule 11 of all goods cleared forwarded or transported or shipped by it. It does not also seek to be exempted from the obligation to produce before the assessing authority concerned, its books of account or other documents, which the assessing authority may call for, for verification of the correctness of the returns submitted.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader, however, would contend that the transporting agency would come within the definition of "dealer". The learned Government Pleader would further place reliance on Commercial Tax Officer and Others v. Swastik Roadways and another,2004 12 KTR 219 and A.B.C (India) Ltd. v. State of Assam and another, 2005 6 SCC 424.