IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2011 / 12TH ASWINA 1933 WA.No. 1433 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.26171/2011 Dated 30/09/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): / PETITIONERS -------------- 1. K.A.DHARMAPALAN, KAYAMPURATH HOUSE, VELLANI.P.O., THRISSUR, PIN – 680 701. 2. K.D.SHIJU, S/O.K.A.DHARMAPALAN, KAYAMPURATH HOUSE, VELLANI.P.O., THRISSUR, PIN – 680 701. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR – 678 625. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES CHECK POST, WALAYAR – 678 625. 3. THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR – 678 625. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MR.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.A. No.1433 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 4th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing release of the vehicle chassis detained at the check post to the appellants on payment of security demanded which is fixed based on the value of the chassis. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the vehicle was purchased from Tamilnadu and is covered by a temporary permit issued by Tamilnadu Government. According to him, the appellants are engaged in truck operation business in Tamilnadu and the vehicle is brought to Kerala for body building and for taking it back to Tamilnadu for registration and operation there. So much so, appellants' case is that the purchase and transport of the vehicle do not involve any incidence of tax under the KVAT Act. However, the appellants have no dispute that the body W.A.No.1433/2011 2 building contract does not involve tax liability under the KVAT Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that body building attracts tax at 12.5% and the same is payable by the builder which should be collected from the appellants, being the owners of the vehicle. After hearing both sides, we find force in the contention that the only liability is tax on body building work which ultimately has to be borne by the appellant. We, therefore, direct release of the vehicle on the appellants depositing Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), which if the appellants want can be deposited in the name of the body builder with his TIN number. As and when payment is made, the vehicle will be released and file will be forwarded to the Assessing Officer before whom the body builder is registered. The Officer to whom file is transferred will retain the file for three months and thereafter the file will be taken up for adjudication, and in the adjudication proceedings the body builder is entitled to file return, take credit of the amount W.A.No.1433/2011 3 deposited as tax payment and if the Assessing Officer is satisfied that there is no evasion of tax in the body building contract, then he will drop proposal for penalty by assessing body building work at the hands of the body builder and by adjusting the deposit amount towards tax for the body built on appellant's vehicle. This Writ Appeal is allowed by modifying the judgment of the learned Single Judge as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg