IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25765 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PANASONIC INDIA PVT.LTD,41/3534A, IIND FLOOR,SAHARA COMPLEX,OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD,COCHIN-18,REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER(ACCOUNTS),V.MURUGAN. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,SPECIAL CIRCLE-III,DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE INTELLINGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.III,DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, WYANAD,KALPETTA. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2010, ALONG WITH W.P(C)NO.25973 OF 2010. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------------- W.P(C) Nos.25765/2010 & 25973/2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The issues involved in both these cases are rather similar and hence they are dealt with together. 2. The former case has been preferred by the 'owner of the goods', whereas the 'latter' case has been preferred by the 'owner of the vehicle', in which the goods were being transported. 3. With regard to the sequence of events, the petitioner in W.P(C) No.25765 of 2010, who is a registered dealer under the KVAT Act/Rules was transporting certain goods ('Display stands') from Delhi to Kochi, in the vehicle bearing No.KL-16/E 6696, when the vehicle and goods were intercepted at Walayar Check post, issuing Ext.P2 notice in the former case, which is shown as Ext.P9 in the other case, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein. 4. On receipt of the said notice issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, though the petitioners sought to explain the position, the same was not palatable to the respondents and the W.P(C) Nos.25765/2010 & 25973/2010 2 detention continues, which made both the petitioners to approach this Court for releasing the vehicle as well as the goods immediately. 5. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits with reference to the materials on record and also on the basis instructions that the petitioner in W.P(C) No.25765 of 2010, though is a registered dealer in Kerala, is not actually authorised to import the particular commodity to Kerala as per the Certificate of Registration and further, the said petitioner is having no branches in Kerala. It is also stated that at the time of inspection in the 'Check post', a letter has been given to the 'Check post' authorities, pointing out that the goods were being brought to be supplied to the different distributors in Kerala; which by itself shows the purpose for sale and hence the detention made by the respondents is perfectly within the four walls of law and is not assailable under any circumstances; submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that this is a matter which requires to be adjudicated in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, so as to bring the true state of affairs to light. W.P(C) Nos.25765/2010 & 25973/2010 3 7. However, considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods as well as the vehicle any further and that the same shall be released to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the Security Deposit demanded as per Ext.P2 notice issued under Section 47(2) in W.P(C) No.25765 of 2010 and also executing a 'simple bond' for the balance amount. This will be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings and the same shall be finalised in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioner in W.P(C) No.25765 of 2010 does not honour the commitment as above, it will be open to the petitioner in the other case to get the goods off- loaded at the premises to be pointed out by the respondents at the cost of the said petitioner and to have the vehicle released. Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab