IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21673 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.KAVERI PET AND POLYFORMS PVT. LTD., PERINGOLE, KOLENCHERRY, KOCHI-682 311, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SRI.A.R.SASIKUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL CIRCLE II, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECKPOST, GOPALAPURAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (TAXES), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR .GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 21673 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 13th July , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P5 notice under Section 47(2) KVAT Act, whereby the goods sold by the petitioner to the consignee have been intercepted on 08.07.2010 doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered dealer and that the incriminating circumstances noted in Ext.P5 are rather technical, such as the delivery note is not seen prepared by using double sided carbon; that the TIN of the consignor is wrongly entered in the delivery note and time of commencement of journey is also not seen entered. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the defects noted would clearly constitute infringement of statutory prescription under Rule 58 of the KVAT Rules. This being the position , the steps taken by the respondents detaining the goods is perfectly within the four walls W.P.(C) No. 21673 OF 2010 2 of law and is not assailable under any circumstance, submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. Considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that this is a matter which requires to be adjudicated in accordance with law. But for that reason, it is not necessary to detain the goods any more and the same shall be released to the petitioner forthwith on condition that the petitioner satisfies 50% of the amount demanded as security deposit and executes a 'simple bond' for the balance amount. This will be without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which exercise shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment . The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk