IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28998 of 2010(Y) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- T. MARUTHAMUTHU, M/S. MANJU STEELS, 15/61, LINGAPPA CHETTY LANE NO.1., COIMBATORE - 641 001. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.3., COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD - 678 001. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 28998 OF 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P8 and P9 notices issued under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, on detention of transports of Iron and Steel Scrap carried in two lorries. According to the petitioner, the goods in question was purchased by him in an auction conducted by M/s. Southern Railways at Aluva. It is stated that the purchase had already suffered payment of VAT, at the rate of 4%, as already recovered by the Southern Railway. It is further stated that under Exts.P2 and P3 invoices, the petitioner had sold the goods to a Company at Kanjikode, Palakkad, against Ext.P1 order placed by them. 2. The transport was accompanied by Exts.P4 and P5 delivery chalan issued by Southern Railway and Ext.P6 and P7 Delivery Notes issued by the Commercial Tax Authority at Tamilnadu State. It is contended that the petitioner is a registered dealer in Tamilnadu State and he is not a registered dealer under the KVAT Act. It is further contended that the petitioner is treating the sale as effected by him from Tamilnadu, as an interstate sale. Therefore it does not attracts payment of any tax under the KVAT Act, is the submission. 3. On a perusal of Exts.P8 and P9 it is revealed that the 2 WP(C) No. 28998/2010 authority had detained the transport, since it is suspected that the petitioner had effected local sale of the goods, inspite he is not a registered dealer under the KVAT Act and he is not authorised to conduct local sale. It is further noticed that the goods under transport is a notified item which should be accompanied with Form 15 Delivery Notice and no such document was available. It was also noticed that as per delivery chalan issued by the Southern Railway the goods were permitted to be transported to Coimbatore in Tamilnadu State. 4. Question whether the transport was genuine and as to whether there was any attempt in evasion of payment of tax, are matters which can be decided on finalising enquiry as contemplated under Section 47. I am of the opinion that the detention need not be continued till finalization of the proceedings, if the petitioner furnishes adequate security for releasing the goods and the vehicles. 5. Therefore the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the goods along with the vehicles detained under Exts.P8 and P9, on the petitioner furnishing Bank Guarantee or Cash Deposit for value of the amount of Security Deposit demanded under those notices. 6. The competent enquiry officer will finalise adjudication at the 3 WP(C) No. 28998/2010 earliest, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of release of the goods. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc