IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18531 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AI OPT I VISION, 57/883, FIRST FLOOR, THAMARASSERY BUILDING, MULLASSERY CANAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, PRADEEP KURUP. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, INTELLIGENCE SQUAD NO.VII, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD HAVING OFFICE AT ALATHUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 18531 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a manufacturer of optical lens and is doing all incidental works including polishing of the lenses making use of the machinery. Since some of the motors and other parts of the machinery got damaged, the petitioner wanted to have the same replaced placing orders with the supplier in Mumbai, who imported the same from elsewhere and sold to the petitioner, as borne by Ext.P2 invoice, which in turn was taken by the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 52 Z/5299. While so, it was intercepted by the respondent on 3.6.2010 doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified in Ext.P3 issued under Section 47(2) of Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2005. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the insinuating circumstances noted in Ext.P3 are that the consignee/petitioner is not a registered dealer, and that the goods were in bulk quantity and further that the W.P.(C) No.18531/2010 2 valuation of the goods is also not correct. Immediately, on receipt of Ext.P3, petitioner preferred Ext.P4 objection, which was supplemented by Ext.P4(a) explaining the factual position, despite which, the respondent has not so far chosen to release the goods, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the writ petition. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that 'TIN' of the petitioner is not given in Ext.P2. He also submits that the item has been purchased against 'C' form and this being the position, the course pursued by the respondent doubting the evasion of tax is correct and sustainable. 4. This Court finds that this the actual position can be brought to light only in the course of proper adjudication. But considering the fact that the petitioner is a registered dealer, as revealed from Ext.P1 Certificate of Registration, (which shows that the observation to the contrary as made in Ext.P3 is not W.P.(C) No.18531/2010 3 correct) and further that the particular item brought over vide Ext.P2 and shown in Ext.P3 is only 'one' Turbomolecular Pump (which by itself is stated as only a 'part' of the machinery) and 'four' litres of oil, (which is stated as part of the standard packing) this Court finds that goods need not be detained any further and that the same shall be released to the petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner executes a 'simple bond' for the security amount stipulated in Ext.P3. This, however, will be without prejudice to the right of the respondent to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which shall be finalised, 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 this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE. nj.