IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29211 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S. P.V.GEORGE THARAKAN & COMPANY, CHURCH ROAD, NEAR AIR CARGO COMPLEX, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 8. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR.RAJAN K.MADHAVAN. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II, THE COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPUZHA AT CHENGANNOOR. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 29211 OF 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of goods and issuance of Ext.P4 notice by the respondent under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act). According to the petitioner, the goods under transport are used as household articles imported from Gulf Countries by Cargo Agencies located in UAE. The goods were imported at Calicut Airport and the petitioner, being a clearing agent, had cleared the articles by payment of customs duty on behalf of various customers. Ext.P1 is the receipt evidencing payment of customs duty. When the goods were transported for supplying to various persons, as per the instructions of the Cargo Agencies, the respondent intercepted and issued Ext.P4 demanding payment of security deposit to the tune of Rs.15,150/-. 2. The reason for detention mentioned in Ext.P4 is that no valid documents as prescribed under Circular No. 15/2005 was accompanying and that the petitioner is not a registered dealer. It is mentioned that Passport number of the senders are not disclosed in the list and no declaration was accompanying with the goods. 3. According to the petitioner Ext.P1 contained details of the 2 WP(C) No. 29211/2010 passport, a copy of which was accompanying along with the transport. The transport was also accompanied by baggage receipt and delivery notes as evident from Ext.P2. It is contended that there was no incidence of sale attracting liability for payment of tax. The delivery notes which accompanied transport will clearly indicate that the goods are intended for supply to various persons, who are relatives of the senders. It is mentioned that the details of persons who sent goods through the Cargo Agencies from UAE is evident from the delivery notes. From Ext.P1 it is clear that the goods are imported and cleared after payment of the customs duty. A detailed list of the persons to whom the goods need be supplied was also enclosed as per Ext.P3, are the contentions. 4. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the basis of instructions, submitted that the required details under Circular No. 15/2005 was not accompanying along with the transport and that the petitioner is not a registered dealer authorised to transport such goods. It is also mentioned that the passport details of the persons who had consigned the goods were not discernible. Learned Government Pleader further pointed out that on an earlier occasion when similar detention was effected, this Court in the judgment in WP(C) No. 27464/2009 had directed to release of the goods on the petitioner furnishing security bond without sureties. But the petitioner, despite 3 WP(C) No. 29211/2010 issuance of several notices, is not co-operating with finalisation of the proceedings under Section 47. 5. However the question as to whether the transport was genuine and as to whether there was any attempt in evasion of payment of tax are matters which need be decided on finalising the enquiry. I am of the opinion that the detained goods can be released pending finalization of the enquiry proceedings, provided the petitioner furnishes adequate security. 6. Therefore the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to release the goods and the vehicle detained under Ext.P4 on the petitioner furnishing Bank Guarantee for the value shown in Ext.P4 notice. 7. The competent authority under Section 47 is directed to complete the enquiry after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the earliest possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc