IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20497 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BABY N.N., BLUE BELL SYSTEMS, 39/5853, ELENTHAT ESTATE, PARAMBITHARA ROAD, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. BY ADV. MR. R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KVAT CIRCLE-II, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.II, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 20497 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 2nd day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved of the detention of the goods brought by the petitioner, by issuing Ext.P4 notice under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the alleged defect shown in Ext.P4 itself is wrong and illegal, in so far the petitioner himself is the 'consignee'. It is stated that the petitioner has entered into a works contract with one 'Sree Hari Industries, Valapad, Thriprayer' as borne by Ext.P1 agreement dated 26.2.2009, to whom the raw materials are being supplied by the petitioner and the products (UPS) being assembled are resupplied to the petitioner, based on the terms and conditions stipulated therein. The said party, by name, Sreehari Industries, is having a works shop at having Door No. X/195 at Valappad in Triprayar, Trichur district, which in turn is shown as the destination point in Ext.P4 invoice. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has already declared a 'go down' at the above premises, as given against the column No.4 of the Ext.P1 certificate of registration. This being the position, the action pursued by the respondent is per se wrong and illegal, W.P. (C) No. 20497 of 2010 : 2 : 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who seeks to sustain the reasons given in Ext. P4, with reference to the materials on record. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, Ext.P3 invoice ia dated 9.6.2010 and the materials were intended to be brought from Coimbatore to the destination, allegedly in Trichur, which is only having nearly 4 - 6 hours journey, while the interception was made by the respondent on 16.6.2010. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the goods were actually entrusted with a parcel service agency, as given in column No. 8 of Ext. P4 and further that, at the time of interception, the vehicle was not there. 5. It is relevant to note that, the actual arrangements between the petitioner and M/s Sree Hari Industries, a proprietorship concern as given in Ext. P2, is not clearly discernible from there. Ext. P2 clearly reveals the element of works contract. But obviously, no consideration is specified in Ext.P2 agreement. In other words, Ext. P2 agreement is without valid 'consideration' and as such, it is not liable to be treated as a valid agreement in the eye of law. The learned Government Pleader also submits that the concerned party i.e. Sree Hari Industries is not a registered dealer.. 6. Considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that, it requires proper adjudication by the appropriate authority, to arrive at the W.P. (C) No. 20497 of 2010 : 3 : correct conclusion. However, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods any further and that the same shall be released to the petitioner forthwith, on condition that, the petitioner satisfies the demand, by furnishing 'bank guarantee' (for the amount demanded as security deposit in Ext.P4); This will be without prejudice to the rights and interests of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if any and the same shall be finalized in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd