IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4623 of 2010(C) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- PRADEEP N., ODUGOUDAR, PRANAV ENTERPRIZES, PLOT NO.A12, IST CROSS , HUBLI. BY MR.N.DHARMADAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CTCP BANGARA, MANJESWAR. 3. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, BANGARA, MANJESWAR, KERALA STATE. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.R RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.4623 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 11th February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The goods being transported by the petitioner on the strength of Exts.P4 and P5 bills in the vehicles bearing Reg.Nos MH 09-Q5522 and MH-09-L-2105 were intercepted by the 3rd respondent issuing Exts.P2 and P3 notices under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act pointing out some incriminating circumstances and thus doubting 'evasion of tax' whereby security deposit has been demanded to the extent as specified therein. 2. Sri. N.Dharmadan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no rationale on the part of the said respondent who are having detained the goods and vehicles. 3. It is a specific case of the petitioner that the goods being brought into Kerala are never intended for sale and the petitioner has brought to sell in connection with the work awarded to him as a Sub Contractor of the Principal Contractor namely 'AFCONS' covered by Ext.P1 work order. W.P (C) No.4623 of 2010 2 4. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the conveyance was supported by all the necessary details as contemplated by Section 46 (3) of the Act and further that the prescribed tax has already been paid in the State of Maharashtra as borne by Exts.P4 and P5 bills themselves. It is also contended that by virtue of the very nature of engagement and also the petitioner is not being a registered dealer, there is no liability for the petitioner to satisfy the income tax in respect of the State of Kerala. 5. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner is liable to take out registration under the KVAT Act/Rules, if at all the action being pursued by the petitioner is to be justified. That apart, it is also stated that the defects pointed out in Exts.P2 and P3 are very much correct or sustainable on the available materials on record and that the action pursued by the 3rd respondent is not assailable under any circumstances. 6. However, taking note of the specific submission made by the senior counsel that Ext.P1 work has to be W.P (C) No.4623 of 2010 3 completed in a time bound manner commencing on or before the 15th of February, 2010 and to have the same completed on or before the 15th of May, 2010, i.e within three months. This Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods as well as the vehicles any more and that the same could be released to the petitioner immediately on furnishing a Bank Guarantee equal to the amount of security deposit as shown in Exts.P2 and P3. On satisfying the said requirement, the vehicles as well as the goods detailed as per Exts.P2 and P3 shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings; which shall be finalised, in accordance with relevant provisions of 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 ma W.P (C) No.4623 of 2010 4 W.P (C) No.4623 of 2010 5