IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2010 / 14TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20809 of 2010(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- PAREKH INTEGRATED SERVICES PVT.LTD., 43/1699A, ARIYAPILLIL HOUSE,KELAMANGALATH CROSS ROAD, SRM ROAD,PACHALAM,KOCHI-682 012, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH - IN - CHARGE SRI.SIVADAS.V.G. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, CTCP,WALAYAR. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001. R1 TO R3 BYSR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 20809 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, transported certain materials, particularly baby diapers, covered by Ext.P4 invoices in the vehicle bearing No. TN 33 AJ 9047, which was intercepted on 23.06.2010, issuing Ext.P6 notice under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act; doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent specified therein. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for release of the goods. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits with reference to the materials on record that, the quantity shown in the concerned documents was only '305 boxes'; whereas on actual physical verification, it was revealed that, there were '349 boxes' thus pursuing an exercise whereby excess quantity of goods were being transported by the petitioner, which made the authority to doubt the evasion of tax, issuing Ext.P6 notice, demanding security deposit. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, the transportation was without the 'transport copy'; which is cited as a defect to sustain Ext.P6. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the 2 WP(C) No. 20809/2010 defects noted are rather trivial and that Ext.P5 'lorry receipt' produced by the petitioner clearly revealed that, there were '349 boxes'. Since the factual discrepancy on physical verification has been established and absence of 'transport copy' of the invoice is not disputed, whether the explanation offered from the part of the petitioner is plausible or not is a matter to be considered and finalised in the course of appropriate/ adjudication proceedings. 4. However, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods any further. In the said circumstance, the goods detained as per Ext.P6 shall be released to the petitioner on condition that, the petitioner satisfies 50% of the security deposit demanded vide Ext.P6 and furnishes security for the balance amount. This will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondents to pursue adjudication proceedings; which shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc