IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18933 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.ESSEL SHYAM COMMUNICATION LIMITED, C-34,SECTOR-62, ELECTRONIC CITY, NOIDA-201 307, UTTAR PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST.MANAGER, STORES & LOGISTICS, ANIL KOUSHAL. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR. 4. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 18933 of 2010-N ---------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P8 notice issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act for detention of the vehicle bearing No.TN 66A/3364 and the goods carried therein, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent of Rs.18,75,000/-. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner Company, who is having a registered office at Noida, started a branch at Aroor and that necessary sanction has been obtained to install the infrastructure in Arror, from the Ministry and other authorities concerned, so as to provide up-linking of TV Channels and such other facilities. It was in connection with the above project, that the petitioner was transporting 'own goods' in the above vehicle to the destination, which was intercepted by issuing Ext.P8 notice. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that, admittedly the consignee is not a registered dealer under the KVAT Act/Rules and that the documents W.P(C) No. 18933 of 2010-N 2 in support of the transportation are not liable to be accepted to release the goods. It is also stated that the matter has to be adjudicated; however, adding that such steps could be finalized within the shortest possible time, at any rate within one week. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in response to Ext.P8, the petitioner has already preferred Ext.P9 explanation and that the petitioner would like to file an additional statement in detail, before the second respondent, to substantiate the contentions. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to file an additional statement before the second respondent forthwith, on which event the adjudication proceedings shall be finalized by the said respondent, in accordance with law, within one week thereafter. The release of the goods in question will depend upon the outcome of such adjudication. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab