IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3543 of 2010(P) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S. ACE FINE PACKS PVT.LTD., PULLEPADY JUNCTION, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR S.JAYAKUMAR. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI, MR.M. RAJMOHAN. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SQUAD NO.VII, PALAKKAD AT ALATHUR. 2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (ASSMT), DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPL.CIRCLE II, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2010, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 3639 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) Nos. 3543 & 3639 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 4th February, 2010 J U D G M E N T In both these cases the common issue involved is whether the respondents are justified in detaining the goods belonging to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 notice issued under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act suspecting chance for "future evasion" of tax; thus demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein. 2. The incriminating circumstance pointed out in Ext.P1 is that the goods were being transported only on the strength of 'extra copy' of the invoice; under which circumstance, there was a possibility of repeated transport using other copies and it was in the said circumstances, that the goods were detained issuing the impugned notice demanding security deposit which is under challenge in both these writ petitions. 3. The nature of the contention put forth by the petitioner in both these cases is rather similar. The W.P (C) Nos. 3543 &3639 of 2010 2 learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the discrepancy was only a mistake at the hands of the concerned Clerk of the Consignor and that it is rather 'technical' thus seeking for the benefit of the second proviso to Section 47 (2) of the Act, enabling the petitioner to effect the advance tax and to have the goods cleared, at the earliest. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the defect pointed is not liable to be considered as 'technical' one; the act pursued by the petitioner being very much contrary to the statutory prescription under Rule 58 (11) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules. The petitioner having admitted the lapse as to the absence of the particular type of document as stipulated under the Rules, it is no more open to the petitioner to say that it is 'technical'; submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances and also taking note of the rival contentions, this Court finds that the goods belonging to the petitioner need not be W.P (C) Nos. 3543 &3639 of 2010 3 detained at the check post any further and that the same could be released to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner remits 50% of the amount demanded under Ext.P1 and also executes a 'simple bond ' in respect of the balance amount shown in Ext.P1. On satisfying the requirement as above, the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith and this will be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings which shall be finalised, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of, as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ma W.P (C) Nos. 3543 &3639 of 2010 4 W.P (C) Nos. 3543 &3639 of 2010 5