IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14516 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.M.SATHAR,PROPRIETOR,M/S.N.R.S.TIMBER TRADERS,ERATTUPETTA. BY ADV. MR. HARISANKAR V. MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,ERATTUPETTA. 2. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,SQUAD NO.II, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA. 3. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 14516 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 20th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The correctness and sustainability of Ext.P2 notice issued under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act, detaining the vehicle as well as the goods belonging to the petitioner on 4.5.2010 suspecting evasion of tax, demanding security deposit, is the subject matter of challenge in the Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the goods were being transported with the relevant documents, in accordance with law. It is the case of the petitioner that the goods were loaded from 'Konny' and the same was being taken to Karnataka, in the course of which, the vehicle had to pass through Thiruvalla. It is contended that goods carriages are not permitted to enter the city of Thiruvalla during the day time. Since the vehicle entered near the town area at about 4'O clock, it had to be taken some distance away by the driver for waiting, to cross the city during the night, as permitted. It is at this point of time that the vehicle was intercepted by the concerned respondent leading to issuance to Ext. P2 notice. 3. Respondents have filed a detailed statement, referring to which, the learned Government Pleader submits that, this is a clear case of evasion of tax. Even though two different routes were there to W.P. (C) No. 14516 of 2010 : 2 : take the goods from Konny to Karnataka, the driver was plying the vehicle towards 'Mavelikara' direction, beyond Thiruvalla and it was intercepted at 'Manipuzha', which is about 4 to 5 Kms away from Thiruvalla - Kottayam route. The route sketch is also attached to the statement. Another incriminating circumstance is that the delivery note and the invoice are dated '3.5.10'; whereas the interception was made on 04.5.10 at Manipuzha at 16.10 hours. Since the commencement of travel is shown as 6.00 P.M. on 3.5.10, there is absolutely no explanation for having found the vehicle proceeding through Manipuzha at 16.10 hours on 4.5.10. It is also pointed out in paragraph 5 and 6 of the statement that the course and conduct being pursued by the petitioner cannot but be deprecated, in view of the huge suppression of turn over effected by the petitioner in different periods. It is also pointed out that, in connection with some other inter state sales, petitioner had produced bogus 'C' Forms. In the above circumstances, the action pursued by the respondents in detaining the goods as per Ext.P2 is not assailable and no interference is warranted, submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. Considering the facts and circumst1ances, this Court does not find any tenable ground to interfere with Ext.P2. This Court does not express any opinion as to the merits of the rival submissions. However, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods any further and W.P. (C) No. 14516 of 2010 : 3 : that the same can be released to the petitioner, on condition that, the petitioner satisfies the demand either in cash or by furnishing 'bank guarantee' (for the amount demanded as security deposit in Ext.P2); on which event, 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 and the same shall be finalized 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 the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd