IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27492 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.P.H.MOHAMED KUNJU & BROTHER, DEALERS IN IRON & STEEL, MARKET ROAD, NH BYPASS ROAD, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-35- REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER P.H.MOHAMED KUNJU. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- INTELLLIGENCE INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, (INTELLIGECE), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPPUZHA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27492 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- A consignment of TMT-Bars transported to the place of business of the petitioner was intercepted by the respoondent on issuing Ext.P5 notice, under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The defect pointed out is that the invoice in Form No.8 accompanied the transport was bearing serial No.4618, whereas in the departmental Delivery Note which accompanied the transport the invoice number is mentioned as 4615. Therefore it was suspected that the consignee might have transported some other goods on an earlier occasion using invoice No.4615 and the goods in question is being transported using the very same delivery note. On the basis of such suspicion, alleging attempt at evasion of payment of tax, the petitioner was requested to furnish security to the tune of Rs.26,592/-. W.P.(C).27492/10 -2- 2. Question whether the transport was genuine and as to whether there was any attempt at evasion of payment of tax are matters to be decided on completion of adjudication as contemplated under Section 47 of the Act. Hence I am not expressing any opinion about the dispute. However, the goods need not be detained pending finalisation of such adjudication. Hence I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing release of the goods on the petitioner furnishing proper security. 3. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the goods along with the vehicle detained under Ext.P5 notice on the petitioner furnishing Bank Guarantee for the amount demanded therein. 4. The competent authority shall finalise the adjudication proceedings at the earliest, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of release of the goods. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb