IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23695 of 2010(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SIVANI MARKETING, ROOM NO.103,1ST FLOOR, AISWARYA BUILDING, S.A. ROAD, VALANJAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16, REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH, AGED 35, S/O.BADARI NARAYANAN SINGH. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SUDHEESH KUMAR, SRI.SIBI KARUN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.V, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 23695 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner transported certain goods through the Railways based on Ext.P2 invoice and supported by other relevant records, including Exts.P3 and P4. However, the goods were intercepted by the respondent, issuing Ext.P7 notice under section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only insinuating circumstance noted in Ext.P7 notice is that, on verification of the bags, the respondent found out an envelope in one of the bags which contained duplicate copies of two other invoices, which were not related to the goods transported. Copies of the said invoices are produced and marked as Exts.P5 and P6. The learned counsel also submits that the evasion of tax is doubted solely referring to the said invoices, adding that the goods covered by Ext.P6 W.P.(C) No. 23695/2010 2 had not reached the railway station at that point of time and that the goods covered by Ext.P5 have already been delivered by Ext.P9 delivery note. The learned counsel asserts that there is absolutely no attempt to evade the tax and the petitioner is very much a registered dealer and a law abiding citizen; simultaneously, assuring that the petitioner, to prove his bona fides, would deposit 50% of the amount stipulated in Ext.P7 notice. 3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that, the 'transport' was also not in conformity with the statutory requirement as there was infringement of section 46(3)(e) as well, which however is sought to be rebutted by the petitioner referring to Ext.P11 reply. 4. Taking note of the rival contentions, this Court finds that, this is a matter which requires to be adjudicated by the competent authority to bring the true state of affairs to light. For that purpose, it is not necessary to retain the goods any further and the same shall be released to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner satisfies 50% of W.P.(C) No. 23695/2010 3 the security deposit demanded in Ext.P7 and furnishes a simple bond for the balance amount. The respondent shall adjudicate the proceedings in accordance with law and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. mn.