IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23236 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- EVM AUTOMOBILES(P) LTD.,11/4-C, N.H.BYE-PASS, KANNADIKADU, MARADU, PIN 682 304, REPRESENTED BY MANGING DIRECTOR SRI,SABU JOHNY. BY ADV. MR. VIJAYAN. K.U. MR. K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,SQUAD NO.VI, O/O.OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INT.) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.VI, O/O.OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INT.) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K . GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 23236 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 27th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is before this Court challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P7 notice issued under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax, demanding security deposit, in respect of the commodities transported by the petitioner vide invoices dated 28.5.2010, as mentioned therein. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, but for mentioning of certain factual position, there is no actual insinuating circumstance to have doubted the alleged evasion of tax and to justify the demand to satisfy the security deposit. The respondents are simply stating that the goods detained require detailed verification. Though, the goods were detained on 17.6.2010, the verification is still to be made, which hence is sought to be intercepted by this Court. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, in spite of service of Ext. P7 on 17.6.2010, nobody has turned up so far and no objection whatsoever has been filed in response to the said notice. It was for this reason, that the further verification could not be finalized. W.P. (C) No. 23236 of 2010 : 2 : 4. Taking note of the rival submissions, the first respondent is directed to physically verify the goods, inform the position to the petitioner and to release the goods subject to the satisfaction of the outcome of the verification. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one week, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the first respondent, for further steps, including to fix the date and time of verification. The Writ Petition is disposed of . P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd