IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7111 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.SOUTHERN TIMBER DEPOT, ERATTUPETTA-1, REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SHRI.P.A.SUBAIR. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SQUAD NO.1, KOLLAM. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 7111 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 5th March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved of Ext. P4 notice issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, whereby a huge amount of security deposit has been demanded, doubting evasion of tax. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no rationale on the part of the respondents for having issued Ext. P4, obviously for the reason that all the requisite documents as contemplated under Section 46(3) of the Act were accompanying the goods. The learned Counsel further submits that the respondents do not have a case that the transport of the goods was without any documents, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of law. On the other hand, the insinuating circumstance mentioned in Ext.P4 is that the vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted at Kannanalloor, W.P.(C) No. 7111 OF 2010 2 Kollam, while plying from Kannanallor to Kottiyam; whereas the documents accompanying the transport revealed that the goods were being transported from Thenkasi to Cheranalloor, Kochi and hence the destination was suspected; thus apprehending evasion of tax, demanding double the tax amount as security deposit which, according to the petitioner does not have any legal or factual footing. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the very nature of the goods being 'timber' is an 'evasion prone' commodity and hence that there is every reason for the respondents to suspect the transaction, if any incriminating circumstance is detected. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is by virtue of the 'evasion prone' nature of the commodity, that the petitioner has satisfied the 'advance tax' as borne by Ext. P3 and that all the requisite documents, including delivery note (Ext. P2) as provided under Section 46(3) (b) and Ext. P6 declaration as provided under Section 46 (3)(d) of the Act were also there. Over and above this, the petitioner has furnished necessary W.P.(C) No. 7111 OF 2010 3 delivery notes in 'Form JJ' as contemplated under the relevant rules of the State of Tamil Nadu, besides furnishing 'measurement list', both of which also form part of Ext. P6 and supplied at the Check Post as forming part of the documents which accompanied the goods. 4. In response to this, the learned Government Pleader submits that there is violation in so far as the appropriate entries made in the delivery note do not reconcile with the stipulation under Rule 58(16) of the KVAT Rules. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances and the nature of the defect pointed out, this Court does not think it necessary to detain the vehicle and the goods at the Check Post and the same can be released to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner executes a 'simple bond' for the requisite amount as shown in Ext. P4. On satisfying the said requirement, the goods as well as the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if any, which exercise shall be finalised in W.P.(C) No. 7111 OF 2010 4 accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk