IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3805 of 2009(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER --------------- BINOJ T. BABY ST. MARY'S MOTORS XXVI/202(1) TMC M.C.ROAD, TIRUVALLA BY ADV. MR.M.K.SUBHAKARAN MR.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR SQUAD NO.I, COMMERCIAL TAXES ALAPPUZHA 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES ALAPPUZHA 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 4.2.2009 , THE COURT ON 04/02/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 3805 OF 2009 C ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges the revised notice issued vide Ext.P9 under section 47(2) of the KVAT Act. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a registered dealer under the KVAT Act. The petitioner's head office is at Thiruvalla and the branch is at Cochin. The goods are imported from China. According to the petitioner, the goods are taken to Thiruvalla and later brought it to its Ernakulam office according to requirement. In other words, the goods were being transported on branch transfer when it was intercepted and the impugned notice originally issued under section 47(2) and thereafter they have modified in the form of a revised notice issued vide Ext.P9. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 3. The defects noticed are essentially that there is no mention of date and time of commencement of the journey. The nature of the transaction is not mentioned. The price of the goods WPC.3805/09 : 2 : is stated to be very low. Possibility of more than one transport using the same document is suspected. Evasion of payment of tax is suspected and hence the revised notice. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a case of the branch transfer and the non mentioning is only by a mistake. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that if the matter is cross checked with the customs department, it will bear out the contention of the petitioner. 5. Having considered the facts, writ petition is disposed of as follows. Ext.P9 is modified and it is ordered that if the petitioner deposits 50% of the amount demanded in cash and executes a simple bond without sureties for the balance amount, the goods detained vide Ext.P9 will be forthwith released to the petitioner. The adjudication process will be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks