IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29240 of 2010(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S. STERLING PRINT HOUSE P.LTD., 49/1849, PONNEYKKARA CHERANELLUR ROAD, AIMS PONEKKARA POST,COCHIN- 682 041, REP.BY IT'S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MR.G. VENUGOPAL. BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-III, COMMERCIAL TAX BUILDING, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM DT,COCHIN-19. 3. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.IV, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-24. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 29240 OF 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of transport of imported offset printing press (Mistubishi make), on issuing Ext.P8 notice by the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner the machine in question was imported from Japan on the basis of order placed and it was cleared from Cochin airport on payment of customs duty. The transport was made to the place of business of the petitioner, accompanied by declaration in Form 8 FA, Bill of Entry and Commercial Invoice. Detention was mainly for the reason that the transport was not accompanied by any documents from the side of the importers, as prescribed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. It is also noted that Form 8 FA which accompanied the transport disclosed value which is not in confirmity with the actual amount mentioned in the Bill of Entry. It is also noted that the importer has no registration under the KVAT Act and the goods were not authorised for own use. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the variation in the value was only due to a bonafide mistake. It is pointed out that the petitioner is a registered dealer under KVAT Act as 2 WP(C) No. 29240/2010 evidenced from Ext.P1 certificate of registration. It is contended that there was no incidence of taxation involved in the transaction since the machinery was imported for own use and that the petitioner was entitled for import of the said machinery, as authorised under the registration. It is contended that the petitioner is an assessee regularly paying tax. 3. Learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents contended that the mandatory requirements of Form 8 FA to be accompanied along with the consignment, was not complied with since Form 8 FA which accompanied the transport was not showing the actual value and authentication by the consignee. It is also mentioned that TIN particulars of the petitioner was not revealed in any of the documents which accompanied the transport and there was no Form 16 declaration available along with transport. 4. The question as to whether the transport was genuine and whether there was any attempt of evasion in payment of tax, are matters which need be decided on finalising the enquiry. I am of the opinion that the goods need not be detained pending finalization of the enquiry, provided the petitioner furnishes security for the amounts demanded under Ext.P8. 5. Under the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to release the goods along with the vehicles, 3 WP(C) No. 29240/2010 which was detained under Ext.P8 notice, on the petitioner furnishing security bond as provided under the KVAT Rules, without sureties. 6. The competent authority is directed to finalise the enquiry at the earliest as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of release of the goods, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc