IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24962 of 2010(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- -- M/S.TECHNICAL TRADE LINKS,CC -32/8B2, N.H.BYPASS,OPPO.MANGALAM TOWERS,PUTHIYA ROAD JN., KOCHI-682 032,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER JOJI ALIAS. BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SRI.T.D.SALIM SRI.PAUL C THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST,BANGARA,MANJESWAR. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 24962 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a distributor-cum-stockiest of hardware products manufactured by some company in Mumbai. The manufacturer, pursuant to the order placed by the petitioner, despatched various hardware items and the same was being transported in the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-55D-9516; when the same was intercepted by the second respondent on 5-8-2010, issuing Ext.P4 notice under section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit; the correctness of which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the understanding of the respondent mainly with regard to the insinuating circumstance pointed out as 'undervaluation' is not correct or proper. The alleged 'under valuation' and the doubting of evasion of tax, demanding security deposit, are with regard to the 'MRP'. The specific case of the W.P.(C) No. 24962/2010 2 petitioner is that the difference between the 'MRP' and the 'invoice price' is nearly 53% (including 6% transportation charges, 12.5% VAT, 2% local transportation, loading and unloading charges and 22.5% commission). It is also stated that the wholesalers are allowed a discount up to 42% of MRP. Even though the position is stated as explained to the concerned respondent by submitting Ext.P5 reply, the same has been given a 'go-bye'; aggrieved by which, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the matter requires to be adjudicated by the appropriate authority. Since the insinuating circumstance noted in Ext.P4 notice is “undervaluation”; this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods as well as the vehicle any further. The same shall be released to the petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner executes a 'simple bond' for the security deposit demanded in Ext.P4 notice. Further, this will be without prejudice to W.P.(C) No. 24962/2010 3 the right and liberty of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if any, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, which shall be finalized as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. mn.