Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

idea Cellular Limited Vs. Intelligence Inspector

idea Cellular Limited vs intelligence Inspector

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 20, 2013
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1102399

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Sales Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Sales Tax

Key legal issue
Sales Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

idea Cellular Limited

Respondent

intelligence Inspector

Excerpt

.....at the check post issuing ext.p3 notice under section 47(2) of kvat act by the first respondent demanding security deposit to an extent of rs. 639102/- suspecting tax evasion. even though the petitioner submitted ext.p4 explanation pointing out the facts and figures, the same was not palatable to the respondents and hence the challenge.2. the insinuation made against the petitioner as given in ext.p3 is in the following terms : " the goods with vehicle checked at ccp walayar. as the goods are being imported into the state for a use other than for the sale or for the consumption in the manufacturing of taxable goods that to be sold in the state, that evident from the dealers previous return filed the concessional rate of purchase against "c" form under section 8(3) (b) of the cst act 1956, cannot availed. hence genuineness of the documents produced, bonafide of the transport and attempt to evade payment w.p.(c)no.31239/2013 2 of tax is suspected. the value of the goods is estimated @ rs. 22,03,800/- including freight." 3. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason noted by the concerned officer is not in conformity with the amended provision of law as on date and that the petitioner is entitled to have the goods transported on the basis of the relevant provisions of law.4. after hearing both the sides and after taking note of the facts and circumstances as borne out by the materials on record and also the relevant provisions of law, this court finds that the petitioner could be permitted to transport the goods on executing a 'simple bond' before the first respondent. it is ordered accordingly. it is made clear that the adjudication proceedings shall be finalised passing appropriate orders under section 47(6) of the kvatact at the earliest, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. writ petition is disposed of. petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY,THE20H DAY OF DECEMBER201329TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 WP(C).No. 31239 of 2013 (D) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED, MERCY ESTATE, 2ND FLOOR, RAVIPURAM M.G.ROAD, COCHIN15REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED PERSON SRI.RAJ KUMAR P., (ASST. MANAGER (LEGAL)) BY ADVS.SRI.DEEPU THANKAN KUM.N.V.ANUPRIYA SMT.G.RENJITA RESPONDENT(S) : ---------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES INTELLIGENCE OFFICE SQUARD NO.II MATTANCHERY AT KARUKUTTY, CAMP AT WALAYAR.

2. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (ASSNT), DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES SPECIAL CIRCLE III COMMERCIAL TAXES COMPLEX, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM PIN:

682. 015. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2012-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 31239 of 2013 (D) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------------- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED209/2007 ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE OF AMARA RAJA DATED2911/2013. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION472) OF THE KVAT ACT ISSUED BY THE1T RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ---------------------------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c) No.31239 OF2013- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of December, 2013 JUDGMENT

The goods transported by the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P2 invoice were intercepted at the check post issuing Ext.P3 notice under Section 47(2) of KVAT Act by the first respondent demanding security deposit to an extent of Rs. 639102/- suspecting tax evasion. Even though the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 explanation pointing out the facts and figures, the same was not palatable to the respondents and hence the challenge.

2. The insinuation made against the petitioner as given in Ext.P3 is in the following terms : " The goods with vehicle checked at CCP Walayar. As the goods are being imported into the State for a use other than for the sale or for the consumption in the manufacturing of taxable goods that to be sold in the State, that evident from the dealers previous return filed the concessional rate of purchase against "C" Form under Section 8(3) (b) of the CST Act 1956, cannot availed. Hence genuineness of the documents produced, bonafide of the transport and attempt to evade payment W.P.(C)No.31239/2013 2 of tax is suspected. The value of the goods is estimated @ Rs. 22,03,800/- including freight." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason noted by the concerned officer is not in conformity with the amended provision of law as on date and that the petitioner is entitled to have the goods transported on the basis of the relevant provisions of law.

4. After hearing both the sides and after taking note of the facts and circumstances as borne out by the materials on record and also the relevant provisions of law, this Court finds that the petitioner could be permitted to transport the goods on executing a 'Simple Bond' before the first respondent. It is ordered accordingly. It is made clear that the adjudication proceedings shall be finalised passing appropriate orders under Section 47(6) of the KVATAct at the earliest, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE sv.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial