IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36224 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S. SIEMENS LIMITED, K.G. OXFORD BUSINESS CENTRE, NO.39/4609, SREEKANDATH ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, REP. BY DIPU K. BOSE, MARKETING EXECUTIVE. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.VI, COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.36224 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P7. It seeks a declaration that Rule 58(16) is not applicable for consignment of goods for the purpose of demonstration and therefore Delivery Note in Form No.15 is not mandatory and seeks a direction to release the consignment detained under Ext.P7 forthwith without collecting any security deposit. 2. Ext.P7 is a notice issued under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The objection taken is as follows: “The goods are being transported from Chennai to Kochi on the strength of Delivery Chalan issued on 1.12.2008 by M/s. Siemens Ltd, M.G.Road, Chennai. The document accompanied with the transport did not declare any of the checkpost in Kerala. There is no document to paste the mote of transportation from Chennai to Kochi. It is further seen that M/s. Siemens Ltd, Kochi has issued a similar delivery chalan in favour of M/s. Pariyarom Medical College, Kannur vide Delivery Chelan No.403138, 403139 dtd. 2.12.2008 for the transport of the consignment. But there is no purchase order or a request WPC. 36224/2008. 2 letter demanding the demo of the item, even though there was a declaration in the sale bill issued that the goods are being transported for demonstration purpose at Pariyaram Medical College. The consignee ought to have issued Departmental Delivery Note in Form No.15 for the transport of goods since the transaction is said to be not in pursuance of sale so as to prove the accountability of the transaction. The own Delivery Chelan issued for this purpose is not a valid document for the instant transport, required under Rule 58 (16) of the KVAT Rule, 2005, Rule 58(18A) promissing issue of delivery chelan did not applicable to the facts of this case. Moreover, the Circular No.21/2006 dt. 21.5.2006 of CCT printed on the Delivery Chalan is also not existing at present, since the same is issued under Kerala Tax on the Entry of Goods into the local Areas Act, 1994. Hence an attempt of evasion of tax is suspected and security deposit is demanded. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a manufacturer cum dealer of medical equipments, electronic equipments etc., and the authorities of Pariyaram Medical College expressed their desire to see the demonstration of two medical equipments to evaluate the performance of the medical equipments before placing any order. It is its case that the WPC. 36224/2008. 3 petitioner then required the Chennai branch to send the equipments for the purpose of demonstration. It is petitioner's case that Exts. P1 to P4 are delivery chalans and delivery notes in Form JJ prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Act and petitioner entrusted the equipments with the City Couriers for transportation by train. It is stated that in Exts.P3 and P4 it is stated that the equipment being despatched from Chennai Office to the Cochin office of the petitioner for the purpose of demonstration to be carried out in the place of M/s. Pariyaram Medical College and that the equipment will be sent back to the Chennai office after demonstration. The consignment was sent to the Ernakulam branch for logistic purpose and it reached at Ernakulam on 2.12.2008 and on the same day the petitioner despatched the same equipments to Pariyaram Medical College for demonstration purpose. Exts.P5 and P6 are stated to be chalans. It is while so, Ext.P7 is issued. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the breach is only a technical breach that it is not in Form 15. 6. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the petitioner company has on an earlier occasion transported goods allegedly for demonstration purpose and later it was sold and in respect of WPC. 36224/2008. 4 the same penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty imposed on the petitioner. That apart, it is pointed out that goods were not declared in the check post by the petitioner. To the same, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it came by train and not through any check post. 7. Having regard to the totality of facts, and the admitted fact that goods were not accompanied by Form 15 delivery note and there were no other documents as required under Section 47(2), I am of the view that the writ petition is not to be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb