IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11918 of 2010(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.ST.ALPHONSA TIMBERS & TRADERS PVT.LTD., KUNDANNOOR, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SHRI.V.C.JOHN. BY ADVS. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR, SRI.JAIRAM.V.MENON. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR SQUAD NO.VI, COMMERCIAL TAXES, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.11918 of 2010-L ---------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010. J U D G M E N T The goods being transported in the vehicle bearing No. KL-11-B 5031 were detained on 1.4.2010, issuing Ext.P3 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, mainly for the reason that, while preparing the delivery note 'double sided carbon' was used, which made the concerned authority to suspect evasion of tax and thus to demand security deposit as specified therein, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, but for the above defect, no other defect is there and that the petitioner has already filed Ext.P4 representation/explanation, which has not been properly appreciated by the concerned respondent. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits with reference to the materials on record that the explanation preferred by the petitioner as borne by Ext.P4 rather concedes the factual position noted in Ext.P3, in so far as there is no denial as to the defect noted, but for stating that there is no violation of the relevant provisions of law. Using of 'double sided carbon' is very much contemplated and insisted under the relevant W.P(C) No.11918 of 2010-L 2 provisions of law. This being the position, the detention made by the concerned respondents vide Exts.P3 is not liable to be declared as arbitrary. 4. However, considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that, it is not necessary to have the goods detained any further and that the same can be released to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner deposits '50%' of the security deposit covered by Ext.P3 and furnishes a 'simple bond' for the balance amount. On satisfying the above requirements, the vehicle as well as the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the rights and interests of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if any, which exercise shall be completed, as as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab