IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25177 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MR.JOSE JOSEPH, SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER, KAIRALI FORD, M/S.KERALA CARS PVT.LTD., ILLIKKATU BUILDING, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.IV, COMMERCIAL TAXES, CIVIL STATION, PUNNALUR, KOLLAM. SR.GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 25177 OF 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner is a registered dealer of Ford Cars having several branches in the State of Kerala. In the course of transport effected by the petitioner, allegedly by way of stock transfer, the goods/vehicles were intercepted by the 2nd respondent issuing Ext.P2 notice under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incriminating circumstances noted in Ext.P2 are not correct or sustainable and inspite of the explanation offered from the part the petitioner, the same has not been properly adverted to, and the detention still continues. The learned counsel submits that, eventhough the goods were to be transported W.P.(C) No.25177/2010 2 from Ernakulam to Trivandrum, taking note of the need of the hour, appropriate arrangements were made to have them transported from the Depot in Kottayam to Trivandrum and it was on the way, the interception was made by the concerned authority issuing Ext.P2. The learned counsel submits that the TIN of the petitioner has been clearly given in the relevant documents and no separate TIN has been given in respect of the consignee it being a stock transfer, though the TIN was omitted to be mentioned in the stock transfer memo. In any view of the matter, it is stated that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish 'bank guarantee' for the requisite amount so as to release the vehicle as well as the goods in view of the urgent requirement. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. Considering the facts and circumstances, there will be a direction to the respondents to release the vehicle as well as the goods detained as per Ext.P2 notice forthwith, on furnishing 'bank guarantee' for the requisite amount of security deposit. W.P.(C) No.25177/2010 3 This, however, will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which shall be finalised, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as 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. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) ps