IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17311 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THE ARASAN MATCH INDUSTRIES,72, JAVULIKKADAN STREET, SIVAKASI-626 123, TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY ITS SALES EXECUTIVE V.JAYARAM. 2. JAYAKANNAN MATCHES(P) LTD., SIVAKASI,REPRESENTED BY THIS SALES EXECUTIVE V.JAYARAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SOMAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, ARYANKAVU.P.O, KOLLAM. 2. M/S.CEE JAY STORES,CROSS JUNCTION, THIRUVALLA. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 17311 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved of the detention of the goods (safety matches) sold by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent, which have been intercepted by the 1st respondent issuing Ext.P1 notice under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act observing that the 'safety matches' are not 'hand made' and hence doubting evasion of tax, demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incriminating circumstances pointed out in Ext.P1 are not correct or proper and that the transportation was in conformity with the statutory requirements, on the strength of valid and proper documents, by way of Inter State sale. The learned counsel further submits that the 2nd respondent who is the consignee is a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and that he has obtained a certificate in this regard as borne by Ext.P3. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the course pursued by the 1st respondent is perfectly within the four walls of the law. It is stated that the materials, though described as “hand made matches” were actually 'machine made 2 WP(C) No. 17311/2010 matches', which was revealed in physical verification as noted in Ext.P1. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that there is some difference in the legal provisions applicable in Tamilnadu where the petitioners are registered; pointing out that exemption is available in Tamilnadu for semi- hand made safety matches also, which is not the position in Kerala. 3. In the course of events, this Court ordered urgent notice on admission to the 2nd respondent and Sri. R. Muraleedharan, Advocate, entered appearance on behalf of the said respondent. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the 2nd respondent is prepared to enshoulder the liability, if any, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, being a registered dealer and that the goods could be released to the petitioners as prayed for, in the Writ Petition. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the goods detained as per Ext.P1 notice need not be detained any further and that the same shall be released to the petitioners forthwith, on executing a 'simple bond' by the petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent, for the security deposit as specified therein. This will be without prejudice to the right of the department/respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any liability is found as liable to be satisfied in 3 WP(C) No. 17311/2010 connection with the transportation, the same shall be cleared by the 2nd respondent as assured and undertaken before this Court. The respondents are to take out 'samples' in presence of the petitioners, before the goods are released as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc