IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18820 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- WAZEERA AYOOB, SHOE SHOPPE, S-25, GCDA COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI-31. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, WAYANAD AT MANANTHAVADI. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, WAYANAD AT MANANTHAVADI. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN: 695 001. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ................................................... WP (C) No. 18820 of 2010 ............................................... Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T ------------------------ The petitioner is a whole sale dealer in shoes, purchasing the same from the suppliers in Bangalore and elsewhere and effecting the sales, on the basis of the certificate of registration obtained as Exhibit P1, effecting payments of the tax payable as and when the same is due. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased same items in course of the transactions as above, as covered by Exhibit P3 invoice and the same was being taken in the vehicle bearing No.KL-7 A 2070, when it was intervened by the first respondent on 11.06.2010, issuing Exhibit P7 notice under Sec.47(2) of the KVAT Act doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein. 2 WP (C) No. 18820 of 2010 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the course pursued by the first respondent is per-se wrong and illegal in all respects. The petitioner is a registered dealer and the incriminating circumstance noted in Exhibit P4 is only 'under valuation'. The liability of the petitioner, if at all any, will arise only after the sale to be effected. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the matter has to be adjudicated by the concerned authority in the due course. But the goods need not be detained any further and accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the goods forming the subject matter of Exhibit P4 notice to the petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner executes a 'simple bond' for the requisite amount mentioned therein as the security deposit. This will be without prejudice to the rights and interest of the respondents to pursue the 3 WP (C) No. 18820 of 2010 adjudication proceedings, if any which exercise 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. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. rkc