IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8772 of 2009(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S. AGS INFOTECH (PVT. LTD. 33/2399A, CHIMMIS COMPLEX, BYE-PASS ROAD, THAMMANAM, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY IT'S AREA MANAGER MR.SAJEEV KUMAR N. BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECKPOST, WALAYAR. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KVAT CIRCLE-II, TRIPUNITHURA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 8772 of 2009-N ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is a notice issued under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The reasons stated in the notice is as follows: “The dealer purchased the goods from Pondicherry at reduced CST rate (2%). But there is no proof for his registration in Kerala. Hence the consignment is suspected and Security Deposit is demanded.” 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader on instruction points out that as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner there was indeed Form-16. It was omitted to be noted in the relevant column, he contends. According to the petitioner, there is inter-State sale of ATM Machine from Pondicherry office and it was accompanied by necessary documents, necessary invoice as also Form-16 declaration. WPC No.8772/2009 -2- 3. Learned Government Pleader points out that the invoice would show that tax is collected as if it were against C-Form when admittedly the alleged buyer namely the Bank does not have registration and therefore according to him it is a case where there is stock transfer to the petitioner and intra-state sale and there is attempt to evade tax. It is the case of the petitioner that the liability to pay tax is only in Pondicherry and ultimately if it is found that concessional rate cannot be availed tax will be levied at the full rate. 4. I feel that it is a case where goods should be released on condition that the petitioner executing a simple bond without sureties. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to release the goods covered by Ext.P3 upon the petitioner executing a simple bond without sureties for the amount covered in Ext.P3. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. MS