IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9616 of 2010(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., ALUPURAM,KALAMASSERY,REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD ALUPURAM WORKS,K.KUMARAVEL. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,INTELLIGENCE SQUAD NO.VII, DEPT.OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER, DEPT.OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,SPL.CIRCLE III,ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C)No. 9616 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging detention of the goods covered by Ext. P1 invoice at the Check Post leading to issuance of Ext. P2 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act suspecting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons noted in Ext. P2 notice of detention are not correct of sustainable, in so far as the respondents have not considered the specific statement of objections raised from the part of the petitioner, as borne by Ext.P3 as to the actual facts and figures. It is stated in Ext.P2 notice that the goods were actually not declared at the Check Post, the reason for which is stated as either the mistake of the driver or omission of the concerned official at the check Post in affixing the requisite seal on the W.P.(C)No. 9616 OF 2010 2 relevant document. It is asserted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no question of evasion of tax since the transaction was only a 'Branch transfer', which does not invite any tax liability at all. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, as a matter of fact, 51 consignments were there in the vehicle bearing No. TN/24B-6451 at the time of interception, out of which 50 consignments were declared and the defect was only with respect to the consignment belonged to the petitioner. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the concerned invoice was actually retrieved from the 'cabin' of the lorry, which however did not bear the signature or seal of the official concerned at the Check Post and it appears that the idea and attempt of the petitioner is only to have effected transportation without any declaration, which by itself is an attempt to evade tax liability . This being the position there is every reason for the detaining authority to have suspected evasion of tax thereby demanding security deposit as per Ext.P2, submits the learned Government Pleader . W.P.(C)No. 9616 OF 2010 3 4. This Court does not intend to express any opinion regarding the merits of the case involved, which however is a matter to be considered and decided by the adjudicating authority . However, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods any further and the same can be released to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner satisfies the requirement under Ext.P2 notice in the form of 'Bank Guarantee'. On satisfying the requirement as above, the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings if any, which exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk