IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25961 of 2008(N) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- M/S. TRINITY HEALTH TECH GROUND FLOOR, 772, 80 FT ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, 7TH MAIN, KORAMANGALA,BANGALORE 560 034 RERPESENTED BY SALES MANAGER (AUTHORISED SIGNATORY) SRI.ANTONY BINIL. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI RESPONDENT: -------------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECKPOST, WALAYAR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 25961 OF 2008 N -------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st September, 2008 JUDGMENT According to petitioner, it is engaged in the manufacture of health fitness equipments, which appointed a Sales Manager in Kerala and one Exercise Machine was sent to the Manager for demonstration purpose. The said consignment was detained at the check post by the respondent who issued Ext.P1 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act. In Ext.P1 it is stated that the consignee is not a registered dealer under the KVAT Act and the number entered in the letter of declaration belongs to M/s. Choice Trading Corporation (P) Ltd., Mattanchery. According to petitioner, the equipment is not a new one for sale, but for demonstration and the registration number of M/s. Choice Trading Corporation, Mattanchery came to be noted on the basis of a mistake committed by the person who despatched the consignment from Bangalore. It is pointed out that on the same day, the consignment was despatched to the dealer also. It WPC.25961/08 N 2 was by an inadvertent mistake, the number was entered in the document accompanying the consignment, it is stated. It is also stated that though the valuation shown is Rs.3,50,000/= in the declaration letter, the equipment will fetch only a nominal amount as it was regularly used for some time, and the value is, however, estimated at Rs.4,37,500/=. The security demanded is more than the actual price, it is stated. It is further stated that there was a request to re-book the said equipment to Bangalore. The prayer is to quash the notice issued by the respondent or to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to take back the equipment to Bangalore. Counsel for petitioner presses the second relief. I heard the learned Government Pleader also. The Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: If the petitioner makes a request before the respondent seeking release of the consignment for taking it back to Bangalore, the Officer will consider the same and verify whether the consignment is a new one or old. If the claim of petitioner that it is an old one is found to be genuine, the Officer will WPC.25961/08 N 3 permit the petitioner to take back the consignment. A decision on the petition filed by the petitioner will be taken as aforesaid, within a period of one week from the date of production of a copy of this Judgment. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.