IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21202 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- KABLE POINT, XXV/806/27, MANCHINGAL LANE, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.T.P. DAISON. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. ADV. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, INTELLIGENCE SQUAD NO.V. COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.V., COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) 21202 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 31st July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court against interception of the vehicle bearing No. KL. 8AN-9938, in which the goods were being transported , leading to issuance of Ext. P6 notice. It is stated in Ext. P6, against Column No.9 that there were no documents to support the transport. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the assertion made by the concerned respondent in Ext.P6 is not at all correct or proper. 2. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit explaining the incriminating circumstances, also pointing out the fact that when the vehicle was sought to be intercepted, the driver of the vehicle did not stop the same, despite seeing the signal and the vehcile had to be intercepted after covering a distance of half a kilometer . When confronted with the position, the driver admitted that there were no documents. It was W.P.(C) 21202 OF 2009 2 thereafter, physical verificiation was conducted and the Members of the Squad took possession of certain documents including previously used delivery notes from the vehicle. The specific instances suggesting possible evasion of tax have been explained in paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit,which prima facie appears to be a matter to be investigated in detail. It is pointed out that the action pursued by the petitioner has resulted in issuance of Ext.P6 notice and also another notice under Section 69(1) of the KVAT Act and further that despite issuance of summons for production of Books of Accounts, no reply has been given by the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner submits that, all the documents produced along with the counter affidavit of the first respondent are the documents entrusted by the petitioner and that the averments and allegations raised to the contrary are quite wrong and unfounded. 4. After considering the rival submissions, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of the case, but for observing W.P.(C) 21202 OF 2009 3 that the matter could be adjudicated by the second respondent. However, it is made clear that the goods as well as the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner immediately on furnishing Bank Guarantee for the requisite amount as specified in Ext. P6, or by depositing the cash equivalent. The adjudication proceedings pursuant to Ext. P6 shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of . P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk