IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30440 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MOHAMMED FEBIN, V.P.II/157-B2-C, MUDIKKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, RESIDING AT CHIRAKKAKUDY HOUSE, KANDANTHARA, ALLAPRA P.O., PROPRIETOR, SEEPISON WOOD PRODUCTS, PERUMBAVOOR. BY DR.K.B.MOHAMMED KUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ, SMT.M.SHAJNA. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, THE COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR, 678 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.P. PRADEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) 30440 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a registered dealer under Kerala Value Added Tax and Central Sales Tax Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that Pallet frames(packing cases)sold to AKS Packing Company (P) Ltd., by the petitioner on its transportation from Perumbavoor to Uthar Pradesh was intercepted. Thereupon, Ext.P2 notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 47 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, demanding security deposit of Rs. 60,600/- in lieu of detention. It is challenging the said order that this writ petition has been filed. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no attempt for evasion of tax, I do not think that it calls for consideration in this writ petition and it is a matter to be decided at the enquiry as contemplated under Section 47 of KVAT Act. The short question to be considered in this writ petition is whether the goods detained could be released to the petitioner on furnishing security bond without sureties. As already noticed hereinbefore, the contention of the petitioner is that the goods under transport are pallet frames(packing cases) made of plywood and according to the respondent the goods under WPC No.30440/2010 2 transport and now, detained is plywood. Based on Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 it is contended that in view of the factum of advance payment of tax by the petitioner as per e-payment receipt dated 29.9.2010 even in case of a finding to the effect that the goods under transports was plywood would not have much of an impact on the issue of liability to pay tax. Those issues also do not call for consideration in this writ petition. Now, reverting to the relevant question in this case, viz., whether the facts and circumstances the goods and vehicle detained under Ext.P2 could be released in terms of first proviso to Section 47(2) of KVAT Act, the learned counsel brought to my attention, the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.29435/2010. Relying on the same as also in terms of first proviso to subsection 2 of section 47 of the KVAT Act, the goods could be released on furnishing of security bond without sureties. The learned Government Pleader resisted the said contention and contended that the goods under transport in the said writ petition was stabilizer and here it is plywood and therefore, the petitioner cannot rely on the said decision to contend for the release of the goods and the vehicle on furnishing security bond without sureties. Having perused the judgment in WP(C) WPC No.30440/2010 3 29435/2010 I am of the considered view that there is absolutely no reason to take a different view in this matter. In short the petitioner is entitled to get an order for release of the goods detained as under Ext.P2. 3. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to release the goods along with the vehicle which were detained under Ext.P2 to the petitioner on his furnishing security bond as provided under the relevant provisions under the KVAT Act and the KVAT Rules without sureties, for the value demanded as per Ext.P2. Needless to say that this order will not stand in the way of the competent authority under section 47 of the KVAT Act, to finalize the enquiry in accordance with the law after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, expeditiously, at any rate, within period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE jma //true copy// P.A to Judge