MAHAVIR ENTERPRISES v. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ petition is disposed of as above
Provisions considered
- KVAT Act, 2003 s. 47(2)
Judgment
K.M. JOSEPH, J.````````````````````````````````````````````````````W.P.(C) No. 28375 OF 2008 C````````````````````````````````````````````````````Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008J U D G M E N TPetitioner challenges Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is a noticeissued under section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, 2003. Variousreasons are given therein and a sum of Rs.19,14,419/- isdemanded. Case of the respondents appear to be that 12loads have been passed through the check post by the sameconsignor after obtaining transit pass but the proof of crossingthe exit check post is not available which shows theconsignor/consignee disposed the goods in Kerala evadinghuge legitimate tax due to the government. Subsequent tothe filing of the writ petition, petitioner has filed an I.A.producing Ext.P7. Ext.P7 is a notice issued under section 47(2) of the KVAT Act which is the revised notice. Therein, anamount of Rs.89,825/- is demanded. Petitioner, in theaffidavit, submits that even if the petitioner expressedwillingness to pay the security amount now demanded as per WPC.28375/08: 2 :Ext.P7, the 2nd respondent is not releasing the goods and thevehicle. There is no dispute that a notice has also beenissued under section 48(3) of the Act. 2.I heard learned counsel for petitioner and learnedGovernment Pleader. 3.In the light of the development in the form ofissuance of Ext.P7 and as the petitioner is willing to pay theentire amount, the detention of the goods and the vehiclecannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is ordered that thevehicle and the goods will be released to the petitionerforthwith upon the petitioner paying the amount demanded asper Ext.P7 and also the petitioner executing a simple bondwithout surety undertaking payment of any amount which hemay be liable to pay under the proceedings to be completedunder section 48(3) of the Act. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)aks
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petition is disposed of as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
KVAT Act, 2003 — s. 47(2).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 30 Sep 2008. The bench was K M JOSEPH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.