IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19774 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S JAI HIND TRADERS, JAI TOWER, 29/621, OPPOSITE KSEB OFFICE, N.H. ROAD, VYTTILA, COCHIN - 19 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN BY ADV. MR. N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR MS. K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENTS: --------------- INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO III, THRISSURE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES AT MINI CIVIL STATION, IRINJALAKUDA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14 /07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 19774 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 14th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The vehicle bearing No. KL 11 D 3508, in which the goods were being transported by the petitioner from Kochi to Methala in Kodungallur, was intercepted by the respondent near Irinjalakuda market. The main incriminating circumstances noted in Ext.P3 is that, there is absolutely no nexus with regard to the destination, to which the goods were being transported from Kochi. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the goods were very much accompanied with all the necessary documents including Ext.P1 Bill as well as Ext.P2 Delivery Note. The learned counsel, with specific reference to paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition submits that, according to the purchaser, the 'weigh bridge' available in Kodungallur was not showing the denominations correctly, under which circumstances, the vehicle along with the goods had to be taken to Irinjalakuda for ascertaining the correct weight and it was at this point, that the respondent intervened, leading to Ext.P3 proceedings. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that, the petitioner could never have taken the vehicle as well as the goods beyond the place of destination and the story put forth as to the alleged defect of the weigh bridge in Kodugallur is not at all correct or proper. It is WP (C) No. 19774 of 2009 : 2 : further submitted that, the vehicle was actually intercepted at the market, where there are quite a lot of shops dealing with the similar goods now transported and hence that the attempt to defraud the revenue cannot be ruled out. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand submits that, the goods have already sustained tax and as there is no question of evasion of tax at all. The learned counsel further submits that, the petitioner is ready and willing to effect the payment as advance tax, pending adjudication of Ext.P3 proceedings. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to remit an amount of Rs. 15,677/- as 'advance tax' and on the remittance of the said amount, the respondent shall release the vehicle as well as the goods to the petitioner forthwith. It is also made clear that, this will be without prejudice to the right of the respondent to finalize the adjudication proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd