IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31963 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.PRADEEP KUMAR, ASIAN MELAMINE COMPANY, 38/2201,A,FIRST FLOOR,KK ROAD,KADAVANTHRA,KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIPUNITHURA. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER SQUAD NO.V, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 31963 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. The challenge is against detention of consignment and issuance of Ext.P7 notice under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). Petitioner is a registered dealer under the KVAT Act and Central Sales Tax Act (CST Act) on the rolls of the 1st respondent. The head office of the petitioner is at Chennai and it is not a registered dealer under the KVAT Act. The principal of the petitioner imported 'melamine' crockery items from Chennai through Cochin Port. After customs clearance the goods were transported from Cochin Port to the place of business of the petitioner. The transport was accompanied by Commercial Invoice, Bill of Lading and Bill of Entry etc. relating to the import of the goods. Further, Departmental Delivery Note issued under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act as evidenced by Ext.P6 was also accompanied with the consignment. Reason for detention W.P.(C)No. 31963 of 2009 -2- enumerated in Ext.P7 is that, the Form JJ Delivery Note issued under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act (TNVAT Act) is self printed and manually serial numbered. It is further suspected that the serial number in that document was corrected and manipulated. It is stated therein that the document accompanying the transport was not valid document as required under Section 46 (3) of the KVAT Act, 2003. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the head office of the petitioner situated at Chennai is not a registered dealer under the KVAT Act and therefore they could issue only the Delivery Note as provided under the TNVAT Act. It is further submitted that all documents relating to the import of the goods was also accompanying the transport and the consignment in question was effected bonafide, on the basis of stock transfer. There was absolutely no attempt at evasion of payment of tax, is the contention. 3. I am of the opinion that whether there was any attempt at evasion of payment of tax can be decided only on W.P.(C)No. 31963 of 2009 -3- finalising the adjudication. But the goods can be released on the petitioner providing proper security. 4. Therefore the 1st respondent directed to release the goods along with the vehicle, detained under Ext.P7, on the petitioner making payment of 50% of the amount demanded therein towards Advance Tax, without prejudice to completion of the adjudication under Section 47 and without prejudice to imposition of penalty, if ultimately found liable. The petitioner shall also furnish Security Bond without sureties in the form prescribed under KVAT Rules for the balance amount. 5. The competent authority shall finalise the adjudication proceedings as contemplated under Section 47 (5) & (6), at the earliest, after affording an opportunity 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 shg/