IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27477 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.RADIAT MARKET BEAMS (P) LTD. MARKET ROAD, PALAKKAD, HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, FRANCIS VARKEY. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECKPOST, VELANTHAVALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27477 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is aggrieved by interception and detention of an interstate transport of M.Sand purchased from a dealer in Tamil Nadu, on the strength of Ext.P1 & P2 invoices. Ext.P3 is the notice issued under Section 47(2) on detaining the consignment. The reason for detention mentioned therein is that the goods under transport as revealed from documents is “Robo M.Sand” whereas the goods actually transported is “M.Sand”, which is a different item. According to the petitioner, “Robo” indicates only the trade name for the product of the particular dealer in Tamil Nadu and the commodity is nothing but “M.Sand” only. 2. I am not intending to arrive at any conclusion regarding the dispute since the statute provides an effective process of adjudication to decide as to whether there was any attempt at evasion of payment of tax or W.P.(C).27477/10 -2- as to whether the petitioner is liable to be imposed with penalty. At present I am concerned only with release of the consignment detained. The petitioner submits that they are registered dealers under provisions of the KVAT Act, who is regularly paying tax. Under such circumstances I am of the opinion that the detention can be directed to be released on the petitioner furnishing security. 3. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to release the goods along with the vehicle, detained under Ext.P3 notice, on the petitioner furnishing security bond as provided under the KVAT Rules, without sureties, for the amount demanded in Ext.P3. The respondent will collect sample of the goods, if necessary, for finalising the adjudication before release of the goods. 4. The competent authority shall expedite adjudication at the earliest, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of release of the goods. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb