IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18534 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MATHEW.C.J., GALLERY, 32/2617 A, NANTHANATH KOCHACKO ROAD, PALARIVATTOM.P.O. KOCHI-25. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KVAT CIRCLE-II, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KALAMASSERRY, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO. IV, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 18534 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is stated as a registered dealer before the first respondent had imported various furniture from China to the Cochin Port, and after the 'customs clearance', the goods were stated as loaded in five different trucks, to be taken to the destination at Palarivattom. The goods were stated as accompanied by relevant documents such as Ext.P4 Bill of Entry, Invoice, Packing list and all other materials including Exts.P6 to P10 Delivery Notes. 2. While so, two trucks, bearing Registration Nos. KL-4C-8422 and KL-07 N 633, were intercepted by the respondents at 7.30 p.m. and physical verification was demanded. After taking the physical verification, Exts.P14 and P15 notices were issued under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, doubting the evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein. The insinuating circumstances noted in the said notices were W.P.(C) No.18534/2010 2 discrepancy with regard to the quantity and valuation, besides wrongly showing in the concerned delivery notes that the transportation was the subject matter of 'interstate' movement. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the entire goods imported were almost equally distributed and carried in five different trucks and the valuation shown was on an average measure, without actual reference to the exact number of items carried in the concerned vehicle. Since the respondents permitted the other three vehicles to pass through, there is absolutely no reason for having detained the said two vehicles alone. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents have permitted movement of the other three trucks is not at all correct or proper, stating that only the two trucks which came in the way of the respondents were intercepted, issuing Exts.P12 and P13 notices, demanding physical verification and subsequently W.P.(C) No.18534/2010 3 leading to Exts.P14 and P15 notices demanding security deposit. Reliance is also sought to be placed on Ext.P10 delivery note wherein the time of commencement of journey is noted as '20:05 hours', that is, after the detention of two trucks at '7.30' p.m. It only suggests that the other three trucks in which the goods were loaded by the petitioner had proceeded through some other way, so as to escape the adverse consequence, which submission however is sought to be rebutted from the part of the petitioner. 4. The fact remains that the 'time of commencement of the journey' in respect of the particular invoice forming the subject matter of Ext.P14 notice is shown as '16.45' hours in Ext.P6 delivery note, while the interception was at 7.30 hours. The other insinuating circumstances, particularly, as to the quantity and valuation also assume much significance, in the light of the course and conduct pursued by the petitioner. The action pursued by the respondents detaining the goods cannot prima facie be deprecated and the true state W.P.(C) No.18534/2010 4 of affairs can be brought to light only in the course of proper adjudication. 5. However, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the vehicle or the goods any further and the same shall be released to the petitioner, on satisfying the demand in Exts.P14 and P15, either in the form of 'cash' or in the form of 'Bank Guarantee'. This, however, will be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which shall be finalised, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 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. nj.