IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19052 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ THYSSENKURUPP ELEVATOR (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED, T.C.5-99/4, SECOND FLOOR, MEMANA BUILDING, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS AREA MANAGER, THYSSENKURUPP ELEVATOR (INDIA) PVT. LTD., T.C.5-99/4 IIND FLOOR, MEMANA BUILDING, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO. 5, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SECOND CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kkms/ P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 19052 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 7 th July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The goods imported by the petitioner from China through the Cochin Port were being transported in vehicles bearing No. KL-43-3255 and KL4-K8557, accompanied by the Bill of Entry as well as the Invoice which according to the petitioner are the only documents to be accompanied as envisaged under Section 46(3) of the KVAT Act. But the vehicles were intercepted on 27.06.2009 by the first respondent leading to Ext.P7 proceedings, pointing out the incriminating circumstances and requiring the petitioner to furnish security to the extent as specified therein. 2. Met with the circumstances, the petitioner preferred Ext. P9 statement before the first respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the interception of the vehicles and goods belonging to the petitioner as per Ext. P7 is absolutely without W.P.(C) No. 19052 OF 2009 3 any rhyme or reason and totally alien to the statutory prescriptions. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioner that the Bill of Entry as well as the Invoice alone are the documents required for transporting the goods in question is wrong and misconceived and that the action pursued by the first respondent is perfectly within the 4 walls of the law, in so far as, all the documents prescribed under Section 46 (3) (d) & (e) were admittedly not there. 4. After considering the facts and circumstances, the first respondent is hereby directed to consider Ext. P9 and to pass appropriate orders, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the documents as specified in Ext. P7. The petitioner would produce all the necessary documents before the first respondent forthwith and on such an event, the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9 W.P.(C) No. 19052 OF 2009 3 representation within 2 days thereafter so as to release the goods as well as the vehicle accordingly. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. kkms/