The petitioner is aggrieved of the detention of goods brought by them (on the strength of Ext.P2), which was detained by the 1st respondent/Intelligence Inspector, issuing Ext.P7 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit as specified therein.
2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits on instructions and with reference to the materials on record that, the defects noted as per Ext.P7 are as follows:
“The vehicle KL-05-AB 5469 loaded with Hydraulic Excavator machinery running on chains intercepted at Mylon near Kottarakkara, Kollam District on 08.11.2014 at 15.30 hrs. the consignment accompanied only a photocopy of the purchase invoice of the machinery dated 30.11.2011. On verification of the available documents noticed that the machinery is owned by a registered dealer Mr. Raphy John P.J., K.T Crushers, Chalavara bearing TIN No.32091041362 belongs to Palakkad District. As a site equipment machinery owned by a registered dealer under KVAT Act and rules, it is mandatory to accompany prescribed transporting documents for proving the purpose and genuineness of the transportation. Here there is no satisfactory reason to bring this machinery to Kollam District without any W.P.(C) No.33175 of 2014 2 valid documents according to the prevailing KVAT Act and rules. Hence it is suspected that there is sales effected in this consignment and deliberately attempted to evade payment of tax. For the above reasons for safeguarding the state revenue, security deposit demanded against the estimated value. VE Rs.22,00,000/-.
SD Rs.6,38,000/-.”
The goods had to be detained in tune with the relevant provisions of law, doubting evasion of tax, demanding security deposit, in view of the conscious attempt to defraud the revenue, submits the learned Government Pleader.
3. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that this is a matter which requires to be finalized by way of adjudication proceedings under Section 47(6) of the KVAT Act. But, for that reason, the goods need not be detained and the same shall be released to the petitioner forthwith, on furnishing '25%' of the security deposit demanded vide Ext.P7 and on executing a 'simple bond' without sureties for the balance amount. This however shall be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the 1st respondent/competent authority to proceed with the adjudication proceedings, which shall be finalized in accordance W.P.(C) No.33175 of 2014 3 with law, as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, before the 1st respondent, for further steps.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
sp