IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8036 of 2010(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ESPEE EQUIPMENTS & SPARES,89/3633-A2, LANDMARK ENCLAVE, VALAJAMBALAM, KOCHI-16 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.P.SIVADAS. BY ADV. MR.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,INTELLIGENCE SQUAD NO.111,DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,KOLLAM. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, INTELLIGENCE SQUAD NO.111,DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,KOLLAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,KOLLAM. 4. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. PERUMALIL GRANITE CONSTRUCTIONS, ARUNOOTTIMANGALAM POST, PERUVA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.8036 of 2010-D ---------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The goods transported by the petitioner in vehicle bearing No.MH 15B/1804 were intercepted by the first respondent, issuing Ext.P4 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act pointing out various incriminating circumstances and thus doubting evasion of tax, demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein, which in turn is subjected to challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. Considering the nature of reliefs prayed for and proposed to be given, this Court does not find it necessary to issue notice to the fifth respondent for the time being. 3. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that there was some deviation in respect of the route, as well as the destination and also with regard to some other factual points conceded in Ext.P5. It is stated that the representative of the consignee happened to give some statement by ignorance, which however is stated as 'untrue'. The learned Government Pleader submits that the W.P(C) No.8036 of 2010-D 2 inconsistency pointed out in Ext.P4 being very much glaring in nature, the course pursued by the first respondent in issuing Ext.P4 notice is not assailable under any circumstances. However, taking note of the pleadings raised in the Writ Petition and also after considering the persuasive submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that the vehicle as well as the goods need not be detained any further and that the same can be released to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner satisfies 50% of the amount shown in Ext.P4 as security deposit, either by way of Bank Guarantee or by cash and executes a 'simple bond' in respect of the balance amount. On satisfying the said requirement, the vehicle as well as the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if any, which shall be finalised 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 ab JUDGE