IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27275 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- U.V.BENNY, AGED 43, S/O.U.A.VARGHESE, PROPRIETOR, RANI GLASS HOUSE, UKKEN SHOPPING COMPLEX, CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.RJANI K.N. SMT.P. RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN SMT.ANILA PETER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAXES CHECK POST, WALAYAR-678601. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 27275 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of transport of one consignment of 'Float Glass' purchased from Sriperumbudur in the State of Tamil Nadu. 2. Ext.P3 is the notice issued under section 472(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (for short the Act) with respect to the detention. The defects noted in Ext.P3 is that, on verification it was revealed that the consignment was carrying Float Glass, which is an item notified for payment of advance tax. But the transport was not accompanied by any proof regarding payment of advance tax and it was revealed that there was failure in payment of advance tax. Hence, genuineness of the transport and attempt at evasion of payment of tax was suspected. 3. According to the petitioner, all the required documents were accompanying to the transport and payment of advance tax could not be effected because of the W.P.(C) No. 27275/2010 2 intervening holidays prior to the date of detention. It is contended that on the simple ground of non-payment of advance tax, the goods ought not to have been detained and the authority could have demanded payment of advance tax for permitting onward transport. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader contends that only on physical verification of the goods it was revealed that the item covered under the consignment is one notified for payment of advance tax. Further, there is facility available in the check post itself for payment of advance tax, which was not availed by the transporter. Hence, attempt of evasion of tax is reasonably suspected, is the contention. 4. Whether there was any attempt of evasion of tax and as to whether the petitioner is liable to be imposed with penalty under section 47(6) of the Act are matters which need be decided on completion of adjudication. At present I am concerned only with release of the goods, pending finalization of the adjudication. Since the defect pointed out is solely with respect to the non-payment of advance tax, I W.P.(C) No. 27275/2010 3 am of the opinion that the goods can be released on the petitioner making payment of advance tax, without prejudice to finalization of the proceedings under section 47 (2) of the Act and on furnishing security for the amount demanded under Ext.P3. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to release the goods along with vehicle detained under Ext.P3, on the petitioner remitting advance tax with respect to the goods under transport and also furnishing a bond as provided under the KVAT Act and Rules, without sureties, for the amount of security demanded. 6. The competent authority under section 47(2) of the Act is directed to expedite adjudication proceedings and to finalize the same as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of release of the goods. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.