IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16237 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SHAMSYDEEN C @ CHANTHIRIYAKATH SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O MOHAMED, AGED. 52 YEARS, POONA HOUSE, P.O. NANGATTIRI, TIRUR - 676 105 BY ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, BANGARA, MANJESHWAR 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO TAXES, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 16237 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 26th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Exts. P2 and P3 notices issued under 47 (2) of the KVAT Act. The goods being transported by the petitioner in the vehicles covered by Exts.P2 and P3 notices were intercepted by the first respondent, suspecting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit as specified therein. 2. Dr. K.B. Muhammed Kutty, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, the detention is without any rationale and only to harass the petitioner, in so far as the petitioner has explained the position in relation to Exts. P2 and P3 notices issued earlier. It is also stated that, the goods were brought by the petitioner, who is not a registered dealer, only for his 'own use' for construction of a residential house on the strength of 'building permit' issued by the concerned Panchayath as borne by Ext.P1. The learned senior counsel further submits that, the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish 'bank guarantee' for the entire security deposit shown in Exts. P4 and P5 so as to facilitate the release of the goods, in view of the urgent requirement to complete the construction. W.P. (C) No. 16237 of 2010 : 2 : 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods any further and that the same can be released to the petitioner, on condition that, the petitioner satisfies the demand, by furnishing 'bank guarantee' (for the amount demanded as security deposit in Exts.P4 and P5); on which event, the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the rights and interests of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if any and the same shall be finalized 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 the judgment. It is also made clear that before release of the goods as above, the competent authority shall verify and record the nature of the goods with proper notice to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd