IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36761 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.SREE KRISHNA STEELS,PARA ROAD, KANJIKODE,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY SURYA KANT JHA,MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,IIND CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER(IB)MATTANCHERRY), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 36761 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of transport of MS Bars, Angles and Squares, which he had purchased by virtue of Ext.P1 invoice and sold to a dealer at Ernakulam by virtue of Ext.P2 invoice. The transport was accompanied by Ext.P2 invoice and Delivery note issued in form No.15. The detaining authority noticed that the date shown in Ext.P2 invoice is 17.11.2009 whereas the detention is on 17.12.2009. It is further noticed that there is overwriting and correction effected with respect to the date and time in the said note. Hence genuineness of the document which accompanied the transport and thereby attempt at evasion of payment of tax is suspected. 2. According to the petitioner, the number and date of invoice is correctly mentioned in the Delivery note issued under form 15. Further it is stated that in Ext.P2 invoice itself at the bottom portion, where the signature is put in, the correct date of 17.12.2009 is mentioned. It is only because of an inadvertant mistake that at the top of Ext.P2 the date is written as 17.11.2009 instead of 17.12.2009. 3. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand pointed out that there is correction with respect to the date and time in the delivery note also. It is further stated that the commodity is a notified item and it is an item prone to tax evasion, wherein bogus transaction are always suspected. 4. Having considered facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing release of the goods on the petitioner furnishing proper security, pending finalisation of the adjudication contemplated under section 47 of the KVAT Act. 5. Under the above circumstances, the second respondent is directed to release the goods detained under Ext.P4 notice, along with the vehicle, on condition of the petitioner remitting 50% of the amount covered under Ext.P4 notice towards advance tax if not already paid, without prejudice to completion of the adjudication contemplated under section 47 and without prejudice to imposition of penalty if ultimately found liable. The petitioner shall also furnish security bond in the form provided under the KVAT Act for the amount of the security deposit demanded in Ext.P4 without sureties. The competent authority under section 47(5)&(6) are directed to complete the adjudication proceedings at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of release of the goods, after affording opportunity to the petitioner. ( C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) jma