IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25654 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD., A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY HAVING THEIR REGD.OFFICE AT AURANGABAD AND BRANCH OFFICE AT BUILDING NO.28/922E, SANTHI EMARALD, 3RD FLOOR, CHERUPARAMBATH ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, COCHIN-682020, A PUBLIC LTD.CO.REP.BY SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, BR.COMMERCIAL CONTROLLER. BY ADV. SRI. E.P.GOVINDAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: app/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.25654 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Petitioner is a registered dealer under the KVAT and CST Acts. Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of goods transported by them, under section 47(2) of the KVAT Act on issuing Ext.P1 notice by the 1st respondent. The reason for detention mentioned in Ext.P1 is that the transport was effected on 5.9.2009, but from the records accompanying the transport it was revealed that the invoice was drawn on 31.8.2009 and the despatch was on 1.9.2009. As per Ext.P1 notice security deposit was demanded to the tune of Rs.3,95,000/- for permitting onward transport of the goods, pending finalisation of the adjudication proceedings. 2. According to the petitioner the delay caused in transport of the goods was due to mechanical trouble shoot up in the lorry, at Edappally. According to him, the lorry was under repair in a work shop at Edappally from 1.9.2009 to 4.9.2009. He had produced certain documents to W.P.(C) No.25654 of 2009 2 substantiate the said claim. It is stated in Ext.P1 notice that, consignor might have transported more than one consignment using the same invoice. Therefore genuineness of the documents and bonafides of the transport is doubted. Suspicion regarding attempt for evasion of tax is expressed in Ext.P1 notice. 3. The question whether there was any attempt for evasion of payment of tax can be determined only in a proceedings of adjudication, to be finalized as contemplated under section 47. This Court cannot enter into any findings on merits of the rival contentions and take a decision thereon. At this stage, the question regarding release of the goods pending finalisation of the adjudication alone can be considered. 4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to release the goods detained under Ext.P1 on the petitioner paying 50% of the amount demanded in Ext.P1 notice as Advance Tax, W.P.(C) No.25654 of 2009 3 and on the signatory of this writ petition furnishing Security Bond as provided under the Rules, without sureties, for the balance 50%. 5. It is made clear that the payment of receipt of advance tax shall not in any way be interpreted as causing prejudice to finalization of the proceedings of adjudication under section 47 of the Act or against imposing penalty, if ultimately it is found that the petitioner is liable for attempt at evasion of payment of tax. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE app/-