IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31166 of 2010(U) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ D.N.M.CURTAIN AND FURNITURE(FORMERLY D.N.M.FURNITURE),AMC.26/1451,CCSB ROAD, ALAPPUZHA-688 011,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, D.MUTHU. BY ADVS. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM), SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN, SRI.K.UMA MAHESWAR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,SQUAD NO.II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA AT CHENGANNUR PIN-689 121. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31166 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). He is aggrieved by detention of goods transported on the basis of sale effected under Ext.P1 'Cash Bill' issued, after collecting tax at 12.5%. According to the petitioner, 75 Nos: of 'Folding Tables' were sold to one Sri. Karunakaran, Kallikkottu, Karunagappally. The transport was effected in a vehicle from the business place of the petitioner to the place of the buyer. It was intercepted on issuing Ext.P3 notice mentioning the reason that, only the original copy of the Bill was seen accompanied with the transport, and that the Bill was not prepared in triplicate as required under Rule 58(11) of the KVAT Rules. It is also stated that the consignee's identity was not properly disclosed. 2. According to the petitioner, the Bill in question contained proper identity of the purchaser which is exactly identical as revealed from the 'Voter's Identity Card' of the person, which is produced as Ext.P2. It is further submitted W.P.(C).31166/10-U -2- that, the Bill in question was actually prepared in triplicate and two copies were handed over to the buyer at the time of delivery of the goods. It is submitted that, at any rate no attempt in evasion of payment of tax can be attributed against the petitioner as it is evident from the 'Cash Bill' that tax had already been imposed on the sale. Merely because the commodity was sold in bulk, the petitioner could not be proceeded against under Section 47(2) of the Act, is the contention. 3. Learned Government Pleader, per contra, contended that the name and address shown in Ext.P1 was not clear so as to identify the person, who is the purchaser. Further the transport was not accompanied by proper documents as required under Section 46(3) and Rule 58(11). The non- disclosure of full address gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that the petitioner was colluding with the purchaser in order to evade payment of tax on further sales, is the contention. 4. Question whether there was any attempt in evasion of payment of tax need not be decided in this writ petition, since an enquiry need to be followed, as contemplated under Section 47. I am of the opinion that the goods can be released W.P.(C).31166/10-U -3- pending finalisation of the enquiry on the petitioner furnishing proper security. It is brought to my notice that the petitioner is a registered dealer regularly paying tax. 5. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to release the goods along with the vehicle which is detained under Ext.P3 notice, on the petitioner furnishing Security Bond in the form prescribed under the KVAT Rules, without sureties, for the amount demanded under Ext.P3. 6. The competent authority is directed to finalise enquiry at the earliest possible, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at any rate within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of release of the goods. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb