IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26142 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD, C/O.M/S SITARAM TRADING COMPANY,VI-245-A, KUNNATHUPEEDIKA,KOTAKAD,KUTTUR,THRISSUR-680 013, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, C.SUBRAMANIAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGIE SIMON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST,WALAYAR-678 624. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST,WALAYAR-678 624. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST,WALAYAR-678 624. 4. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. M/S.SREENIVASA LOGISTICS, D.NO.9-2-614,FLAT NO.304,MANBHUM OPUS, ROAD NO.11,BANJARA HILL HYDERABAD-34. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 26142 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The case has got a history. The goods intended to be transported by the petitioner were carried from the godown in Hyderabad and it was being taken over to Thrissur, in the vehicle bearing No. KA 01 C 1065. On intercepting the vehicle on 14.07.2010, it was revealed that the transportation was being pursued on the strength of some 'fax copies' of the documents; under which circumstance, Ext.P8 notice was issued under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein. 2. The owner of the vehicle approached this Court by filing WP (C) 23771/2010 stating that, because of the default/lapse on the part of the consignor/consignee, he was put to serious loss and hardships and that he might be permitted to take the vehicle after off-loading the goods at the place shown by the concerned respondent; more so since the 5th respondent therein (who was the owner of the goods and the petitioner herein) had not turned up in spite of communicating the position. After hearing the petitioner therein and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, Ext.P10 verdict was passed by this Court granting appropriate relief; pursuant to which the goods were 2 WP(C) No. 26142/2010 off-loaded by the owner of the vehicle at the premises shown by the respondents and the vehicle was released. 3. Thereafter, the present petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) 25353/2010 raising allegations against the owner of the vehicle and also the officers of the department, stating that much loss and prejudice had already been caused to the petitioner and that the course pursued by the respondents was not correct or proper. The case of the petitioner is that the originals of the documents which were accompanying the transport, were lost from the custody of the driver of the vehicle and it was pursuant to the intimation given, that the 'fax copies' were forwarded and the goods were being taken to the destination. It was in the course of transit, that the vehicle was intercepted by the respondents issuing Ext.P8 notice. The petitioner also contends that the respondents have now issued Ext.P15 notice under Section 47(8) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 to seize the goods; on receipt of which the petitioner has approached the respondents by filing Ext.P16 reply. Since the respondents have simply turned down the request of the petitioner, there is no other alternative for the petitioner, but to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who sought to assert the sequence of events with regard to the circumstances under which the earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, i.e., in WP(C) 3 WP(C) No. 26142/2010 25353/2010 was caused to be withdrawn. However; taking note of the particular facts and circumstances, this Court does not propose to subject the said instance to a microscopic analysis; more so when the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish 'Bank Guarantee' in respect of the security deposit demanded in Ext.P8 so as to release the goods. 5. After hearing both the sides, the petitioner is directed to furnish Bank Guarantee for the security amount in Ext.P8 on which event, the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondents to pursue adjudication proceedings, which 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. 6. In view of the direction as above, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 need not be pursued. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc