RISHAB IMPEX Vs. STATE OF KERALA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner is aggrieved by detention of the transport of goods effected from Chennai to Ernakulam, under the provisions of Section 47(2) of the Act, by issuing Ext.P3 notice. According to the petitioner, the goods transported are "Satellite Receivers" and parts which are imported from China through Chennai Port. Contention is that transport was accompanied by the required certificate prescribed under the Tamil Nadu VAT Act namely, K.K. Certificate and the goods were transported in 2 different consignments arranged through 2 transport agents. While one of such transports reached the border check post on 22.09.09, the 2nd respondent intercepted suspecting evasion of payment of tax.

(2.) IT is noticed that the reason for detention mentioned in Ext.P3 is that, the transport was accompanied only by documents such as photocopy of K.K Certificate, invoice of the petitioner raised from China and bill of entry issued by the Customs House, Chennai. It is further stated that the photocopy of the invoice accompanied the transport is not a valid document to effect interstate movement. It is also noticed that the transport was effected in a different vehicle other than the vehicle mentioned in the bill of entry. On the basis of the above suspicions, genuineness of the transport was doubted and security was demanded under the provisions of Section 47(2) of the Act alleging attempt at evasion of payment of tax.

(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader appearing for respondents. The question whether there was any attempt at evasion of payment of tax is a matter which need be decided after completing the process of adjudication as contemplated under Section 47(2) of the Act. It is not proper for this Court to enter into the merits of the rival contentions and to arrive at any finding at this stage. However detention of goods need not be continued till finalisation of such adjudication, especially in view of the proviso to Section 47(2) of the Act. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that this Writ Petition can be disposed of directing release of the goods detained, on the petitioner furnishing proper security.