IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25030 of 2010(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THAJUDEEN.A, CORAL ENTERPRISES, KARIKKODU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.II, DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AT ATTINAL 695 002. 2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 001. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 001. BY SRI. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 25030 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the detention of the vehicle and goods made by the first respondent, as per Ext.P1 notice issued under section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a registered dealer of furniture and timber under the KVAT Act. During the course of business, certain furniture items were being transported form Kollam to Thiruvananthapuram in the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-8AA-6267, when the same was intercepted by the first respondent, issuing Ext.P1. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons shown in Ext.P1 are flimsy or technical, which are not likely to be considered as justifiable under any circumstances. It is also stated that the factual position as W.P.(C) No. 25030/2010 2 discernible from Ext.P1 is that the petitioner was transporting the items to his own place in Thiruvananthapuram and that the items were manufactured at Kollam and that is why the position is not repeated in column 7. 4. The learned Government Pleader, with reference to the materials on record, submits that name of the consignor given in column '6' and the name of the consignee given in column '7' are entirely different. The former is “Corel Enterprises”, Kurikodu, Kollam while the latter is “Coral Quality Furniture”, Sasthamangalam, Trivandrum. No proper objection has been filed by the petitioner in response to Ext.P1. 5. In such circumstances, this is a matter which requires to be adjudicated by the competent authority so as to bring the true state of affairs. But, for that reason, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods as well as the vehicle any further. The same shall be released to the petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner W.P.(C) No. 25030/2010 3 deposits 50% of the security deposit demanded in Ext.P1 and furnishes a simple bond for the balance amount. This will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if any, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, which shall be finalized as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. mn.