MEDI COMBINES Vs. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A consignment of medical and surgical equipments containing 190 packages belonging to the petitioner has been detained as per Ext. P6. The reason mentioned in Ext. P6 is that on perusal of the KVATIS details, it was ascertained that the dealer is not authorised to deal with the commodities under transport. Petitioner however referred me to Exts. P7 to P9 assessment orders and also Ext. P10 return and contended that he has already been treated as a dealer engaged in the business of medical and surgical equipments. However, Ext. P1 is the certificate of registration and that did not contain goods, medical and surgical equipments. However, it is seen that subsequent to the detention, petitioner made Ext. P12 application and on that basis, the certificate was amended by endorsing medical and surgical equipments also w.e.f. 11/10/2012. Therefore, prima facie as on 3/10/12, when the goods were detained, the items in question were not covered by the certificate of registration. This precisely is the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader also. In the nature of the aforesaid controversy, I am unable to find any illegality in the detention. On the other hand, if as contended by the petitioner, the transportation was legitimately done, it is a matter which the petitioner will have to prove in the adjudication that is to be held. Therefore, at this stage I am not inclined to direct unconditional release of the goods covered by Ext. P6. Therefore, I direct that the petitioner shall remit 50% of the security demanded and on furnishing a bond for the balance without sureties, the consignment in question will be released subject to adjudication.