The petitioner admittedly consigned certain goods on the basis of a purchase order, issued by the 4th respondent, within the State. The goods were detained at the exit check post on 10.06.2014, as evidenced by Exhibit P5. Security deposit was demanded at Rs.1,40,000/-. The goods were detained for the reason that the consignee was a defaulter under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for brevity “KVAT Act”). On detention of goods for the aforesaid reason, the petitioner requested that they be permitted to take back the goods, since the consignee had declined to accept the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was after the detention that the consignee had declined to accept the goods and, hence, the petitioner, who had transported the goods after payment of Central Sales Tax, as is evident from Exhibit P1, should not be harassed, in so far as security deposit is concerned.
WP(C).No.15208 of 2014 - 2 -
2. On going through the records, it is seen that invoice was issued on 27.05.2014. Necessarily the goods would have been transported only after that. The e-Consignment Declaration was uploaded on 28.05.2014. Though it is contended that the goods have been detained on 28.05.2014, it is difficult to accept the same, since the petitioner obviously would have approached this Court on a date before the present writ petition was filed. The notice itself was issued on 10.06.2014, as is evidenced from Exhibit P5. The date and hour of check is stated as “10/6/2014, 7.30 hrs”. The petitioner relies on Exhibit P3, being a letter of rejection of the goods by the 4th respondent, which is dated 06.06.2014. If the goods were rejected on 06.06.2014, long before the detention of the goods, it is not clear as to why the transport itself was carried out. There is also nothing to evidence the fact that the transport had commenced at any date long before 10.06.2014, which evidently is the date of detention as per the records.
3. However, it is to be noticed that the detention was only on account of the default of the consignee who had declined acceptance of the goods. The possibility of an evasion does not at WP(C).No.15208 of 2014 - 3 -
all arise in the circumstance and even as per Section 47(4), the only requirement is payment of advance tax. Advance tax prescribed can only be for an anticipated sale after the transport of goods to within the State of Kerala, that too by a dealer within the State. In the circumstance of the consignee having declined the goods, there cannot be any advance tax levied on the consignor; nor is there a sustainable claim for security deposit. In such circumstance, the petitioner shall be permitted to release the goods and the vehicle on the payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) expeditiously on production of a certified copy of this judgment, which amount would be the maximum penalty leviable, since there is no ground to suspect evasion.
Writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.
vku.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran, Judge ( true copy )