M/S. SALONIA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee, the revision petitioner, is before this Court challenging the order of the Tribunal, in which a remand was made for consideration afresh. On facts, suffice it to notice that the assessee imported a consignment of furniture and was unloading; allegedly a portion of the consignment, at Aluva in a declared branch of the assessee, which had its Head Office at Thiruvananthapuram.

(2.) The Intelligence Wing of the Department, on noticing the unloading activities, sought for the document based on which the transport was made. Annexure-B notice was issued under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for brevity, the KVAT Act] read with the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 [for brevity, the Rules]. In the notice, the allegation was that on interception at Muttom between Ernakulam and Aluva, the document accompanying the consignment was the invoice with destination shown at Thiruvananthapuram. This did not support the transport from Cochin Port to Muttom at Aluva, which was in the opposite direction.

(3.) The assessee got release of the goods on payment of security deposit and adjudication proceedings were initiated, which culminated in Annexure-C order. In Annexure-C the Intelligence Officer found that the interception of the consignment, which was supported by an invoice to an address at Thiruvananthapuram, was unloaded at Aluva and no documents supported its transport from Cochin Port to Muttom, Aluva. Though the assessee had a contention that it had a Branch at Aluva, the bill of entry did not show the Branch address. The vehicle was intercepted at 10.30am and the dealer produced two Delivery Notes, which were seen affixed with the seal of the Deputy Commissioner, Mattancherry with a date after the consignment was intercepted. The documents so produced were not taken into consideration raising a suspicion on its authenticity. Penalty was imposed at twice the tax attempted to be evaded. An appeal was filed, in which a remand was made as per Annexure-D.