PUSHPAGIRI MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the validity of Circular No. 51/06 dated 19/12/2006 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes whereby any person other than a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act bringing goods from outside State above the value of Rs.5,000/- is required to issue a certificate of ownership in Form 16 to accompany the goods. Even though batch cases were disposed of by common judgment, it is seen that only one of the parties have chosen to file appeal against judgment of the learned Single Judge. It is conceded that the requirement of a counter signature in the certificate of ownership required under the original notification was later dispensed with through modification of the Circular. In other words, after the modification, any person other than a registered dealer under the KVAT Act bringing goods from outside Kerala for own use has to bring it under cover of a certificate of ownership in Form 16 which needs to be signed only by him. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and the Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

(2.) The first question to be considered is whether the Commissioner has authority to issue the impugned Circular in exercise of powers under S.3(2) of the KVAT Act. For easy reference we extract the said Section hereunder:

(3.) Even though counsel for the appellant pointed out that Form 16 certificate of ownership is prescribed under R.58(18) which does not provide for it's issue where the transport is pursuant to sale, we do not think the argument is tenable because the Commissioner has adopted Form 16 prescribed under R.58(18) as the right form required to be issued for transport of goods above the value of Rs.5,000/- from outside the State. In other words, he has only adopted the form while issuing Circular under R.3(2) of the KVAT Act. Therefore, R.58(18) has no application for use of Form 16 based on the impugned Circular issued by the Commissioner. In other words, Form 16 can also be used by any person in terms of R.58(18) which has no relation to the impugned Circular issued by the Commissioner. Therefore, this objection is also turned down. The Writ Appeal, therefore, is dismissed.