PROMPT ENGINEERS SOLUTIONS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges Ext.P4 by which the goods had been detained and the petitioner is called upon to remit an amount of Rs.1,31,350. In Ext.P4, it is stated that though the goods are consigned to the address of the petitioner at Alappuzha, the particulars show that shipment is to an address at Vyttila. It is observed that as per the KVATIS of the dealer, there is no branch or godown at Vyttila and therefore suspecting that the dealer is evading the subsequent local sale by delivering the goods to the dealer at the shipping address without issuing a sale invoice, there is attempt to evade tax. Apparently, this is a matter which requires adjudication by the competent authority.

(2.) However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a registered dealer, it would be appropriate to release the goods on condition of the petitioner remitting 25% of the amount and furnishing simple bond for the balance amount.