IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29205 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BOBAN GEORGE, PROPRIETOR 'M/S SOFT TURF' KANIKATTU HOUSE, III/131-A, KATTITHARA ROAD, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. BOBBY JOHN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KVAT CIRCLE - I, THRIPUNITHURA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/ 2009, THE COURT ON 15/10/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 29205 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of transport effected from its Kochi branch to Bangalore branch. Petitioner is a registered dealer born on the file of the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner one Truck load of PVC Floor Mats was consigned from Kochi branch of the petitioner to its Bangalore branch, on the strength of Ext.P2 Delivery Note in Form No.15. The goods were intercepted by the 1st respondent on issuing Ext.P3 notice under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act). Reasons for detention of goods mentioned in Ext.P3 is that, the document accompanied with the consignment is the original copy of the Delivery Note in Form No.15 and not the duplicate copy. It is also stated that the date and time of commencement of journey are not mentioned in the Delivery Note. W.P.(C)No. 29205 of 2009 -2- 2. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the reasons for detention mentioned in Ext.P3 is not a mere defect in the document, but keeping the duplicate copy not accompanied with the transport, the petitioner can effect further transport of the same commodity of goods and thereby evasion at payment of tax is suspected. Therefore release of the goods without providing proper security is opposed. 3. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the question whether there was any attempt at evasion of payment of tax need be decided on finalisation of the adjudication under Section 47 (5) & (6) of the KVAT Act. However continued detention of the goods till such finalisation is not at all warranted. Having considered the facts that the petitioner is a registered dealer and the goods were transported on stock transfer basis, I am of the opinion that the goods can be released on the petitioner furnishing adequate security and on payment of 50% of the amounts demanded under Ext.P3 W.P.(C)No. 29205 of 2009 -3- towards Advance Tax. 4. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to release the goods along with the vehicle detained under Ext.P3, on condition of the petitioner making payment of the 50% of the amount demanded under Ext.P3 towards the advance tax without prejudice to the finalisation of the proceedings and without prejudice to imposition of penalty if ultimately found liable. The petitioner shall also furnish Security Bond without sureties in the form prescribed under the KVAT Rules, for the balance amount of 50%. 5. The competent authority shall finalise the adjudication proceedings as contemplated under Section 47 (5) & (6), at the earliest, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, as early as possible at any rate within a period of two months from the date of release of the goods. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/