IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18486 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.S.R.S.INDUSTRIES, G.K.MATTOM, THENUR PO, PALAKKAD, REP.BY ITS PARTNER, SANJAY PODDAR. BY ADV. MR. N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR MS. K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECKPOST, WALAYAR. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECKPOST, WALAYAR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 18486 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 2nd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is before this Court when the goods brought by them from Raipur in Chattisgarh to the consignee in Kerala, as covered by Ext.P1 invoice, was intercepted by the respondents at Commercial Tax Check Post, Walayar leading to Ext. P2 proceedings, allegedly for not having accompanied with the delivery note and thus suspecting the evasion of tax. In response to the notice dated 28.6.09, the petitioner has submitted a statement of objections dated 29.6.2009 and after considering the same, Ext.P4 has been issued by the second respondent sustaining the action, which hence is impugned in the present Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the goods admittedly having been brought from Raipur have not crossed the boarder and are lying at the check post. The goods were not accompanied with the delivery note, as they were not required as per the relevant provisions of law till it crossed the boarder. Immediately on confronting with the position under the KVAT Act and more since the driver of the vehicle had not given proper intimation as to the arrival of the vehicle, the petitioner, taking appropriate steps on war footing, rushed to the respondents and produced Ext.P3 delivery note to substantiate their case, which however was ignored by the WP (C) No. 18486 of 2009 : 2 : second respondent while passing Ext.P4 order. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, there is absolutely no question of evasion of tax under any circumstances and the inference drawn by the second respondent is not on the basis of the materials on record. It is also submitted from the part of the petitioner that, the petitioner is very much ready and willing to pay the 'advance tax' as prescribed. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds it fit and proper to have the vehicle as well as goods released, on condition that the petitioner remits 50 % of the liability cast upon them vide Ext.P3 and furnishes a 'self bond' for the balance amount. On satisfying the requirements as above, the vehicle as well as the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. It is made clear that, this will be without prejudice to the right of the second respondent to finalize the adjudication proceedings, which shall be pursued and finalized, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed as above. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd