IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29713 of 2010(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MANOJ KUMAR K.P., SUNDEK INDUSTRIES, VENGOLA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR 683 554. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECKPOST, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD 674 004. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 29713 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of a transport of plywood, which was sold inter-state to a dealer in Vinjayawada. The consignment was detained at the Commercial Tax Checkpost, Walayar, by the respondent, on issuing Ext.P6 notice under section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (for short the KVAT Act). The transport was accompanied by a departmental Delivery Note issued in Form 15. The reason for detention mentioned in Ext.P6 is that Delivery Note accompanied with the transport was not written in double side carbon as prescribed under rule 58(16) of the KVAT Rules. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that non usage of double side carbon was only due to ignorance about the amendment brought in the relevant Rule. It is stated that the petitioner had already remitted Advance Tax with W.P.(C) No. 29713/2010 2 respect to the transaction and that there was no attempt in evasion of payment of tax. 3. Learned Government Pleader, per contra, contended that the amendment was brought as early as in January, 2010 and that was intended to curb malafide attempts of using Delivery Notes for more than one transport. It was contended that non-usage of double side carbon raises suspicion regarding genuineness of the transport. There is also violation of rule 58(16) of the KVAT Rules and hence, attempt at evasion of payment of tax is suspected. 4. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the issue need not be decided in this writ petition, since an enquiry as contemplated under section 47 of the KVAT Act is to be contemplated. Pending finalization of the enquiry, the goods can be released to the petitioner on furnishing proper security. 5. It is contended by the petitioner that he is a registered dealer regularly paying tax. According to the W.P.(C) No. 29713/2010 3 respondent, proper security by way of payment of 50% of the amount shall be insisted. 6. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to release the goods detained under Ext.P6 notice, along with vehicle, on the petitioner furnishing Security Bond as provided under the KVAT Rules, without sureties, for the value mentioned in Ext.P6. 7. The competent authority is directed to finalize the enquiry, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of release of the goods. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.