TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 1290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in public auction and the sale proceeds will be remitted to the State Exchequer. 2. The facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner, purchased an excavator purchased in June 2013 by availing loan facility from the financier M/s.Bajaj Finserv. His monthly obligation was to pay an amount of Rs. 56,096/- to the financier. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was brought to State of Kerala, on hire for the purpose of quarrying operation of one Sri.Kumar, who had a valid permit during the relevant time. The vehicle was seized by the officers of the Department when it was noticed that the vehicle was not declared in any of the check post in the State of Kerala and no documents were produced to show that the Excava....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a for re-sale. If the intention was to sell the excavator, any purchaser in State of Kerala could have actually purchased the same in the State of Kerala itself and there is no reason why such a sale should be effected and that too, when it was hypothecated to a financier. The aforesaid Kumar was having a valid quarrying permit during the relevant time which is produced as Ext.P2 and Mr.Kumar has agreed to the fact that the excavator was brought for use in his quarry during the relevant time. The agreement prepared in a stamp paper purchased on 03/07/2013 reflects the arrangement between the parties. It was only on account of a mistake that the date was shown as 25/06/2013, which, by itself, cannot be a reason for treating the agreement as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hing prevents this Court to consider the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner or having a finality in the proceedings which has resulted in Ext.P6 order. That apart, this is a second round of litigation and the assessment order had been passed based on the direction issued by this Court in O.T (Rev) No.25/2014. 7. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court had considered O.T (Rev.) No.25/14 which was filed by the State of Kerala against an order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had, after referring to the factual circumstances involved in the matter, placed reliance on the agreement entered into between the petitioner and Mr.Kumar and had observed that there was no reason in imposing penalty and the vehicle was directed to be rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t only for the purpose of coming to a conclusion that there was indeed an arrangement between the parties regarding the hiring of the vehicle, the Intelligence Officer could have, if the other facts are supportive of the said arrangement, accepted the same. In the case on hand, it is relevant to notice that the petitioner had purchased the vehicle only in June 2013. The vehicle was intercepted at Eruthanpatty on 01/07/2013 at 6.30 Hrs. A brand new vehicle was brought to the State of Kerala immediately after purchase and the materials relied upon indicates that the registration was granted only on 25/06/2013. Therefore, it cannot be an instance where the intention of the petitioner was to effect sale of the vehicle and avoid payment of tax. ....