IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31948 of 2010 (P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S. ESAF MICRO FINANCE & INVESTMENTS PVT.LTD., MANNUTHI, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.PAUL THOMAS, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, KADAMBELIL HOUSE, MANNUTHY P.O., OLLACKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.III, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682011. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.31948 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a non-banking finance company. An iron safe transported by the petitioner from the State of Tamil Nadu, on the strength of Ext.P1 invoice, was intercepted by the second respondent on issuing Ext.P3 notice under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act). 2. According to the petitioner the transport was booked through M/s.Kerala Roadways Pvt.Ltd. and it was accompanied with tax invoice which will indicate that the purchase was only for 'own use'. The reason for detention mentioned in Ext.P3 is that the goods under transport was undervalued and on verification the second respondent was convinced that the reasonable value of the goods will be Rs.1,00,000/- instead of the value of Rs.12,480/- shown in the invoice. It is also mentioned that there was no documents accompanied with the transport to prove that the goods in question was intended for 'own use'. It is contended by the petitioner that the transport was effected by virtue of an inter state purchase on payment of CST at the rate of 4% and the invoice itself contain an endorsement to the effect that it is for 'own use'. Therefore W.P(C) No.31948 of 2010 2 the apprehension expressed by the authority is totally baseless. 3. Heard learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. Whether there was any attempt in evasion of payment of tax, is a matter need be decided on finalising the enquiry. I am of the opinion that the goods can be ordered to be released on the petitioner furnishing proper security, pending finalisation of the enquiry. 4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to release the goods detained under Ext.P3, on the petitioner furnishing Bank Guarantee for the 50% of the amount demanded under Ext.P3 and on furnishing Security Bond for the balance amount, in the form prescribed under the KVAT Rules, without sureties. 5. The competent authority is directed to finalise the enquiry after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of release of the goods. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab