IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25625 of 2010(C) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- CIPLA LTD,TP V.190-3, COCHIN PUBLIC SCHOOL ROAD, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682021. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHEK POST, ARYANKAVU(PO),KOLLAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 25625OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Exts.P5/P5(a) notices issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act whereby tax evasion is doubted and security deposit is demanded to the extent as specified therein. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered dealer and it was only by way of an 'inadvertent mistake' that the goods transported in the vehicle bearing No.MH/O4-BU- 4156 by way of two different consignments happened to be intercepted by issuing Ext.P5/P5(a) holding that 'Form 16' was not there. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was carrying Form 27B and also Form 8F which fact is not disputed from the part of the respondent. This being the position, the reason for the detention is stated as rather technical, which made the petitioner to approach this Court for appropriate reliefs. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits with reference to the materials on record W.P.(C) No.25625/2010 2 that the factum of absence of 'Form 16' stands rather conceded. The learned Government Pleader also submits that there was no 'delivery note' to sustain the transport, which however is rebutted from the part of the petitioner stating that it was only a stock transfer and no sale is involved therein. The learned Government Pleader submits that the contention of the petitioner that it is not intended for sale, is not reflected from Exts.P2/ P2(a) or Exts.P4/P4(a) and this being the position, it is a clear instance to evade the tax and the respondent is perfectly justified in having issued Exts.P5/P5(a), which are not liable to be interfered under any circumstances. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, it being a 'stock transfer', the documents in support of the transportation, that is, Ext.P2 /P2(a) in 'Form 8F' are very much in order and that the same will definitely satisfy the requirement under Section 46(3)(b) of the KVAT Act. However, the fact remains that the absence of 'Form 16' stands rather conceded and the explanation offered from the part of the petitioner is that, it was by mistake that 'Form 27B' happened to be carried in W.P.(C) No.25625/2010 3 support of the transport. This being the position, this Court finds that this is a matter which requires to be adjudicated by the concerned authority, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. But, the goods need not be detained any further and that the same shall be released to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner satisfies 50% of the security deposit demanded in Exts.P5/P5(a). This shall be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondent to pursue the adjudication proceedings, 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, JUDGE) ps/17/8