IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20559 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K. ABDUL RAHIMAN, KARIMPANACKAL SAW MILLS, THUPPANAD, KARIMBA P.O., PALAKKAD BY ADV. MR. M.C.JOHN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SQUAD NO IV, PALAKKAD 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFIICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SQUAD NO IV, PALAKKAD BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C. K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVER THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 20559 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 22nd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P5 and P6 notices issued by the first respondent under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act, when the vehicles, in which the goods were being transported (allegedly teak fire woods) were intercepted by the first respondent on 21.7.2009 and pointed out the discrepancies demanding the security as stated therein. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the goods as above were purchased by the petitioner from the Forest Department, as evident from Ext.P1 wherein the different lot numbers have been specifically mentioned. 2. On satisfying the demand in Ext.P1 by remitting the balance amount, the petitioner took possession of the goods; the particulars of which have been given in form 116 forming part of Ext.P1 itself. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the lots bearing No. 60/2008 and 63/2008 as above were being transported after remitting the advance tax as borne by Exts. P2 and P2(a) and accompanied by the tax invoices as borne by Exts. P3 and P4 with the delivery notes as borne by Exts.P3(a)/P4(a). The contention of the petitioner is that, the goods admittedly having been purchased by the petitioner from the Forest Department the interception made by the first respondent is WP (C) No. 20559 of 2009 : 2 : totally without any rationale and is only a measure to harass the petitioner. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, with specific reference to the entries in Ext.P1 statement compared with Exts. P3 and P4 tax invoices, submits that the value of the goods covered in lot No. 60 of 2008 remitted by the petitioner is Rs.23,375/- plus VAT @ 12.5 %, Cess @ 1 %, FDT @ 5 % coupled with income tax and Cess @ 2.5% and 3% respectively. All these amounts together with freight/transportation charges and also the minimum profit involved in the transaction, would have taken the total sale value, much above the sale price shown in Ext.P3. Same is the position, with regard to the entries on comparison with lot 63 shown in Ext.P1 and the sale price shown in Ext.P4. To put it short, the figures shown by the petitioner do not reconcile with each other. In the said circumstances, the first respondent cannot be blamed for having doubted the transaction and intercepting the goods, particularly when the goods stated as auctioned vide Ext.P1 are clearly stated as “teak firewood”; whereas that the goods actually being transported by the petitioner were found as small cut pieces of teak wood, fit enough to be used for furniture and other commercial items. More so, the consignee as shown in Exts.P3 and P4 is not a dealer of fire woods, but owner of a saw mill, engaged in manufacture and trade of furniture. WP (C) No. 20559 of 2009 : 3 : 3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to Ext.P7 representation preferred before the second respondent, the liability fixed by vide Exts. P5 and P6 was reduced by 20%. 4. Considering the facts and figures, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the vehicles as well as the goods and same would be released to the petitioner, on condition that, the petitioner satisfies 50 % of the liability as specified in Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 (as modified by Ext.P7) furnishing a 'self bond' for the balance amount. On satisfying the conditions as above, the goods and vehicles shall be released forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to finalize the adjudication proceedings pursuant to Exts.P5 and P6 in accordance with law, 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 as above. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd