IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37689 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CROMPTON GREAVES LIMITED, CHERUPUSHPAM BLDG, 5TH FLOOR, 300-6, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031. REPRESENTED BY MR.E.SIMON ZACHARIA, SR.MANAGER-FINANCE. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH JERARD SAMSOM RODRIGUES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.II,COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AT ATTINGAL. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.37689 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the interception and detention of transport of Electrical goods, dispatched by the petitioner from Ernakulam to Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner is a dealer in Electrical and Electronic goods having its head office at Mumbai and branch at Kochi, Kerala. The goods under transport was sold to a dealer at Thiruvananthapuram on the strength of Ext.P2 invoice dt.30.11.2009. The goods were dispatched through a transporting agency on 7.12.2009, as per 'consignment note' issued on that day. The goods were intercepted at Kallambalam on 16.12.2009 and Ext.P3 notice was issued under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). The reason for detention mentioned therein is that the copy of invoice and the copy of the Lorry Receipt, which accompanied the transport, are dt. 30.11.2009 and 7.12.2009 respectively. Therefore it is suspected that the goods might have been transported with the originals of those documents on 30.11.2009. Hence security deposit was demanded for release of the goods. W.P.(C).37689/09-E 2 2. According to the petitioner the date of dispatch of the goods was sealed on the invoice. It is further stated that the transaction in question was properly accounted and uploaded in the monthly return filed by the petitioner for the month of November 2009. But inspite of production of such proof the respondent refused to accept the same and not permitted the transport. 3. The question as to whether there was nay attempt at evasion of payment of tax is a matter which need be decided on finalisation of the adjudication contemplated under Section 47. Therefore I am not entering upon any findings regarding validity of the action initiated. But the goods need not be detained till finalisation of the adjudication, provided the petitioner furnishes adequate security. 4. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the goods detained under Ext.P3, along with the vehicle, on the petitioner making payment of 50% of the amount demanded under Ext.P3, towards Advance Tax, without prejudice to completion of the proceedings under Section 47 and without prejudice to imposition of penalty, if ultimately found liable. The petitioner shall also furnish security bond in the form prescribed under the W.P.(C).37689/09-E 3 KVAT Rules, without sureties, for the balance amount of 50%. 5. The competent authority under Section 47 shall finalise the adjudication after affording opportunity to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of release of the goods. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb