MUHAMMED M.N. @NARIKKAMATTAM MACKAR MUHAMMED Vs. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 by which goods had been detained and the petitioner is called upon to remit an amount of 87,200/-.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner acquired the goods from M/s.Bombay Plywood Industries as per invoice dated 24.10.2016, which is evident from Ext.P3. The goods were loaded in the vehicle from that place and it was taken to the petitioner's premises. From there, Ext.P6 invoice was drawn in the name of M/s.Sagar Plywoods, Kolhapur on 24.10.2016. While the goods were being transported to Kolhapur, it was intercepted at Irumalpady which is enroute Kolhapur. The petitioner had already paid advance tax and necessary Form No.8F was also uploaded in the KVATIS. The delivery note was also available with the vehicle.

(3.) The officer had detained the goods only on the assumption that the goods had been loaded at Panipra. It is submitted that the goods were loaded at Panipra, since the purchase was made from M/s.Bombay Plywood Industries situated at Panipra.