IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3407 of 2010(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KAMAKSHI SEKHAR, M/S.NICE COSMETICS, 779/VIII, NIDA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. 2. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR (3)(RAPID ACTION) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM AT EDAPPALLY. 3. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, FACILITATION CENTRE, KOCHI PORT, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 3407 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 2nd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The goods imported by the petitioner from abroad and being transported from the Cochin Port in the vehicle bearing No. KL 7 AM 8960 were intercepted by the second respondent on 28.01.2010 issuing Ext.P5 notice under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, taking note of some incriminating circumstances; thus doubting evasion of tax and in turn demanding security to the extent as specified therein. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even though the petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 explanation, the same has not been properly considered and the vehicle as well as the goods are still detained, which hence is sought to be interfered in this Writ Petition. The petitioner has also got another case, that the goods involved are not liable to suffer any tax liability under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and hence that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for detaining the goods. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the deficiencies pointed out in Ext.P5 are not simple or technical as projected from the part of the petitioner and that they go to the very root of case itself. The case of the petitioner that there cannot be any tax liability in WP(C) No.3407/2010 2 respect of the goods is also strongly opposed by referring to Ext.P1 certificate of registration, wherein the goods transported by the petitioner (soap nodules) have been given at Entry No.4 under the head 'C' “Purchase for Resale”. The learned Government Pleader submits that even though the very same item has been shown as entry No. 1 under the head B. “Purchase for use in Manufacture”, it is very much possible to have made use of the same for resale and in the said circumstance, evasion of tax is possible. This being the position, the learned Government Pleader submits that the action pursued by the departmental authorities is perfectly within the four walls of law and not assailable under any circumstance. 4. This Court finds considerable force in the submission made from the part of the learned Government Pleader. However, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods as well as the vehicle any further, on condition that the petitioner furnishes 'Bank Guarantee' to the extent as shown in Ext.P5. On satisfying the said requirement, the vehicle as well as the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the right of the respondent to pursue the adjudication exercise which shall be finalised 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 accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc