IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22734 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S. CADBURY INDIA LIMITED, THRIKKAKARA PIPE LINE JUNCTION, THRIKKAKARA P.O. KOCHI - 682 021. REPRESENTED BY MR. K.P. MAGUDAPATHY, AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH JERARD SAMSOM RODRIGUES RESPONDENT: --------------- THE COMMERICAL TAX OFFICER, SECOND CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 22734 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 10th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The confectionery items transported by the petitioner in the vehicle bearing No, KL 5 B 2966 were intercepted by the respondent on 7.8.2009, pointing out several defects as borne by Ext.P8. It is said that, the goods were being transported, not supported with form No. 8, but with from No. 8 A, which is no more available, having been deleted from the statute book. Similarly, it is further stated that the goods were not accompanied with the ''transporter's copy” of the invoice and further that there was inordinate delay in effecting the actual transport, since the invoices pertained to different dates from 3.8.2009 to 6.8.2009, under which circumstances, the chance for evading the tax was suspected, thus issuing notice under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act, demanding security to the extent as specified therein. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, immediately on inspection of the vehicle, the petitioner rushed to the spot with Ext.P9 reply and also offering to pay the advance tax, explaining the actual facts and figures. The learned counsel also submits that, the petitioner is a registered dealer and one of the major tax contributors to the State and this being the position there is absolutely no chance or attempt to evade the tax in any manner. It is WP (C) No. 22734 of 2009 : 2 : further pointed out that, the defects noted in Ext.P8 are rather technical or trivial in nature, which do not justify the detention of the goods as well as the vehicle. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances and also giving due weight to the nature of the commodity being transported, which is an easily perishable item on exposure to heat and rain, this Court finds it fit and proper to have the vehicle as well as the goods released, on condition that, the petitioner deposits 50 % of the amount demanded in Ext.P8 and furnishes a 'simple bond' for the balance amount. On satisfying the requirement as above, the vehicle as well as the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. It is made clear that, this will be without prejudice to the right of the concerned respondent to pursue the adjudication proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8, which shall be finalized, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd