IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2012 of 2009(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SURAKSHA ENTERPRISES,4 NAYAPURA, OPP UMBRELLA FACTORY INDORE, M.P.REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MOHAMMED RIYAZ BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE COMMERICAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMERCUAK TAX CHECK POST, KUNCHIPALLY, P.O.CHOMBOLA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 2012 OF 2009 M ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows. Petitioner is stated to be a registered dealer under the MP VAT Act. Arecanuts were imported from Indonesia and duly discharged at the Cochin Port and were cleared by filing bill of entry for home consumption through a recognised clearing agent. Petitioner carried the goods to Indore accompanied by invoice, bill of entry for home consumption, declaration by the C & F agent and declaration under the MP VAT Act and transit pass duly filled up and declaration in Form 27B. It is stated that on account of an inadvertent omission and lack of experience by the driver, the transit pass was not got sealed at the entry check post. It is pointed out that the goods were declared at the border check post and all the documents were furnished. Ext.P7 notice under section 47(2) of the Act is issued in which it is stated as follows. “ Goods under transport are consigned from Cochin Port to Indoor. On the verification WPC.2012/09 : 2 : of documents, it is seen that the vehicle with goods are not declared at any of the enroute check posts. No transit pass is seen obtained from the concerned authority. Hence, bona fide of the transport and thereby an attempt of evasion of tax is suspected. Hence, security deposit demanded.” Petitioner filed objections and it was rejected by Ext.P9. In Ext.P9, it is stated that the reply is not satisfactory as they have not produced any valid document to prove the genuineness of the documents produced and bona fides of the transport. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 3. Having considered the facts, writ petition is disposed of as follows. There will be a direction to the respondent to release the goods detained vide Ext.P7 to the petitioner upon the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five Thousand) and executing a simple bond by the petitioner and the C & F agent of the petitioner for the balance amount in Ext.P7. WPC.2012/09 : 3 : The adjudication process will be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE