IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 2084 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20628/2009 Dated 17/08/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ P.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.PONNUSWAMY NADAR, PROPRIETOR, KRISHNAN & COMPANY NO.15, CHELIMADA, K.K.ROAD, KUMILI-685 909, DISTRICT-IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, KUMILI, DISTRICT IDUKKI. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, IDUKKI, AT KATTAPPANA, DISTRICT IDUKKI. 3. THE INTELLEGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.I, KATTAPPANA, DISTRICT IDUKKI. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W. A. No. 2084 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge declining to interfere with the appellant's challenge against impugned notices issued under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Appellant, a dealer in Kerala, is engaged in inter-State purchase of grocery items for sale mainly to Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation. Even though goods transported from Tamil Nadu to Kerala were covered by Delivery Notes, the same was seized on account of undervaluation. The appellant's case is that undervaluation is not a ground for detention of goods. Besides purchase the appellant is also an agent of outside dealer in respect of consignment sales in Kerala. The learned single Judge however declined to consider appellant's challenge against notices for the reason that appellant can raise all the objections in adjudication proceedings. Even though we agree in principle that if notices issued are totally without jurisdiction, 2 this Court should interfere with the same, we do not find any ground to reverse the view taken by the learned single Judge because it is a settled position that transport of goods declaring low value is a ground for detention, and collection of security. In this case, since the appellant has raised the contention that price prevalent in Tamil Nadu is the same declared in the transport document, we leave freedom to the appellant to establish the same in adjudication proceedings. It will be open to the Officer concerned to find out the market value of the commodities involved in Tamil Nadu to verify whether there is undervaluation or not. W.A. is therefore disposed of leaving freedom to the appellant to produce evidence in support of his contention before the adjudicating authority. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 3