IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14618 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ANTONY SUNNY, VELLARA TRANSPORT, 98/5, MAIN ROAD, PULIYOOR, C F POST, KARUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, VALARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.14618 of 2010-B ---------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Exts.P7 to P9 notices issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, whereby the lorries bearing Nos.TN 45 TCP 1239, TN 45 TCP 1242 and TN 45 TCP 1243 have been detained by the concerned respondents, suspecting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit. 2. The case projected by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that the defects noted by the respondents in Ext.P7 to P9 are not valid grounds to detain the vehicle under any circumstances, more so in view of the decision rendered by this Court in Rams V. Sales Tax Officer (1993) 91 STC 216) and C.M.Radhakrishnan V. Station Manager (1995) 96 STC 495). 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the action pursued by the respondents is within the four walls of the law, in so far as there are enough materials to sustain the same. It is stated that the vehicles were detained at the Valara check post, which is nearly 10 to 15 meters W.P(C) No.14618 of 2010-B 2 inside the State, after the border check post. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the work orders produced as Exts.P4 to P6 were not there earlier and the only document that accompanied the goods was the 'invoice' as noted against col: 9 of Exts.P7, P8 and P9. 4. On going through the materials on record, this Court finds it difficult to accept the version put forth by the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to take back the vehicles to Karur District, in the state of Tamil Nadu from where they were sent over to Kerala, which submission also does not appear to be palatable due to many a reason. 5. However, this Court does not find it necessary to express anything on merits or to detain the goods as well as the vehicle any further. The same could be released to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner remits 50% of the security deposit demanded vide Exts.P7 to P9 and furnishes sufficient security in respect of the balance amount before the authorities concerned. On satisfying the requirement as above, the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if any, which shall be finalised in accordance with law, as expeditiously as W.P(C) No.14618 of 2010-B 3 possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No.14618 of 2010-B 4