IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2444 of 2011(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S. KAPICO KERALA RESORTS (P) LTD., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN ROY.M.MATHEW. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------------- THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, (SQUAD NO.III, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(INT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE-673006. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2444 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the Government Pleader. 2. Contention is that the laminated glass and clear glass transported are meant for own use, to be installed at the multi-storied resort complex which is being constructed by the petitioner at Cherthala, in Alapuzha District. The reason for detention mentioned in Ext.P2 is that the original plan and building permit were not produced facilitating the authority to verify the claim regarding own use of the goods. 3. In this regard, the petitioner points out that the consignment was accompanied by invoice copy and copies of declaration in Form 16 and building permit. But learned Government Pleader submitted that unless the plan is produced, the authority is not in a position to ascertain whether the goods are actually required for installation in the building in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner W.P.(C).2444/11 -2- also points out Ext.P3 Circular (Circular No.7/2008) to contend that the authority is not entitled to insist on production of original building permit and plan. But Ext.P3 only clarifies that for own use declarations counter signature of the assessing officer is not required. 4. Question whether there was any attempt in evasion of payment of tax is a matter which need be decided on finalising the enquiry. The competent authority has to make verification regarding genuineness of the claim that the building construction is ongoing and that the glass was intended to be fitted to the building which is constructed. However, pending disposal of the matter I am of the opinion that the goods need not be detained. 5. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to release the goods along with the vehicle detained under Ext.P2 on the petitioner furnishing Security Bond without sureties in the form prescribed under the KVAT Rules. The petitioner will produce copies of the title documents and tax receipt in order to prove that either the petitioner company or its Chairman is having the required solvency with respect to the amount of security deposit demanded. W.P.(C).2444/11 -3- 6. The competent authority under Section 47(5) & (6) of the KVAT Act, having jurisdiction on the matter, will finalise the enquiry at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of release of the goods, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb