TMI Blog1993 (3) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n charged Central sales tax in respect of the sales. 2.. When these consignments reached Kochi, the Indian Airlines which is represented by the first respondent did not deliver the goods to the petitioners though the first respondent had issued cargo arrival notices to the various petitioners. Delivery was refused on the ground that clearance from the second respondent, Intelligence Officer, Sales Tax, Mattancherry, was required before the goods could be delivered. Though the petitioners demurred to this procedure on the ground that the first respondent could not detain the goods and insist on orders from the second respondent, they were definitely informed that such clearance was needed. Copy of the communication which the petitioner in O.P. No. 14503 of 1992 received from the first respondent is exhibit P7 and it informs him that he must obtain written release order from the second respondent to enable the first respondent to deliver the consignment to him. Petitioners apprehended that non-delivery of the goods was because of projected proceedings under section 29A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ("KGST Act"). Another purchaser like the petitioners, namely, one B.T. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to those claimed in the other original petitions. 4.. The first respondent representing the Indian Airlines has in his counteraffidavit stated that the reason for non-delivery of goods to the various consigneepetitioners was the prohibition contained in the letter, exhibit R1(a), dated July 27, 1992, issued by the Intelligence Officer, Sales Tax, Mattancherry, wherein he had alleged that a large number of unregistered dealers were utilising the air consignment facilities to transport goods with a view to evade checking at the border check-posts. The company was one such, who used the air facility and got goods transported without remitting the tax due to the Kerala State. The Intelligence Officer therefore requested the first respondent to detain any consignment in favour of the company and to release the same only after written release orders were issued by him. The Intelligence Officer followed this communication with another order, exhibit R1(b), dated September 1, 1992, pointing out that goods were being purchased from the company by unregistered dealers and therefore requesting the first respondent to detain such goods as well until clearance from his office. The instruction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of a person transporting the goods and to satisfy himself that there is no evasion of tax. Sub-section (2) which provides for the detention of the goods is to the effect that if such officer has reason to suspect that the goods under transport are not covered by proper and genuine documents (in cases where such documents are necessary) or that any person transporting that goods is attempting to evade payment of the tax due under the Act, he may for reasons to be recorded in writing detain the goods and shall allow the same to be transported only on the owner of the goods or his representative or the others mentioned furnishing security for double the amount of tax likely to be evaded as may be estimated by such officer. 7.. It is these provisions that are invoked by the second respondent. Subsection (1) is clear that the detention is of goods while in transit because it requires the driver or the other person in-charge of a vehicle to stop the vehicle when required by the officer mentioned. The purpose of stoppage of the vehicle is to enable the officer to verify the documents required under sub-section (2) of section 29 and to satisfy himself that there is no evasion of tax. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s own purposes from a factory in Tamil Nadu or marble purchased by him in Rajasthan in his own name. So the mere non-registration of the consignee cannot by itself be a ground for detention of the goods under section 29A. In all these cases the goods have been consigned to the various petitioners and there is no case that they are themselves attempting to evade payment of the tax. 9.. If it be true as alleged by the second respondent that there is sale of goods within Kerala by the branch office it is up to him to take proceedings against the company's branch office in Ernakulam either to bring them to tax or otherwise to compel them to make payment of the tax due. Of course, I must mention here that the definite stand of the company having regard to the nature of the transactions and the documentation is that there is no local sale but only inter-State sale from Secunderabad to Kerala. Without resorting to the aforesaid procedure, it was not proper for the second respondent to direct detention of the goods by the Indian Airlines authorities and directing the consignees to obtain clearance from him before the goods are released. 10.. It must be remembered that section 29A inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
