IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32641 of 2010(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M/S.SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONIC PRIVATE LTD., KUDILUMUKKU,,KAKKANAD,COCHIN, REPRERSENTED BY ITS C & F AGENT,MARTIN A.J., KALABAVAN ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH ,KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.NOBLE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO-1 COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 2. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLEGENCE)COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD, 678 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD - 678 001. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 32641 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the detention of a transport effected by them, pursuant to Ext.P4 notice issued under section 47(2) of Kerala Value Added Tax Act (for short the KVAT Act). LCD Televisions and Monitors, transported by the petitioner to its dealers at Thrissur and Palakkad, were intercepted by the 1st respondent. As per Ext.P4 notice, the transport was accompanied only by a Delivery Note. The reason for detention noted in Ext.P4 is as follows:- “As per the accompanying D/Note, there are 10 Nos. of LCD TV. The Driver said that one item (Sl. No.4 in the commodity column) has been delivered at Palakkad. So, the vehicle should have contained 9 Nos. of TV. But on physical verification, the vehicle actually contain 21 Nos. of T.V. Hence, prima facie, there is no nexus between the load and the document accompanied.” 2. According to the petitioner, apart from the Delivery Note the transport was accompanied by two invoices, copies of which are produced as Exts.P2 and P3, which would indicate W.P.(C) No. 32641/2010 2 that 8 and 5 numbers of LCD Monitors were consigned to dealers at Thrissur. Apart from the 13 items covered under Exts.P2 and P3, the 10 items covered by the Delivery Note were intended to be supplied at the service centres of the petitioner at Thrissur and Palakkad, is the contention. It is mentioned that, 2 items were already delivered at Palakkad and the remaining 8 items were kept in the vehicle. Further contention of the petitioner is that, apart from the Delivery Note, Exts.P2 and P3 invoices were also accompanying with the transport. 3. Heard; learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents. The allegation that Exts.P2 and P3 invoices were also accompanied with the transport, is strongly refuted. It is mentioned that in the Delivery Note the number of the invoices was not mentioned and the quantity shown is only 10 numbers. Under such circumstances, genuineness of the transport was doubted and evasion of payment of tax is reasonably suspected, is the contention. 4. Question whether there was any attempt in evasion of payment of tax is a matter, which need be decided on finalization W.P.(C) No. 32641/2010 3 of the enquiry. Hence, I am of the opinion that the goods can be released, pending finalization of the enquiry, on the petitioner furnishing proper security. 5. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to release the goods along with vehicle, which was detained under Ext.P4 notice, on the petitioner furnishing Bank Guarantee for the value of security deposit demanded thereunder. 6. The competent authority under section 47(2) of the KVAT Act is directed to finalize the enquiry, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of release of the goods. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.