IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 15848 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S UNITED TIMBER CORPORATION, PETTA, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN 686 661, REP. BY MANAGING PARTNER MR. MUHAMMED K. NAUSHAD BY ADV. MR. T.M.SREEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, AMARAVILA 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 15848 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 24th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was transporting timber in the vehicle bearing No. TN 69 E 2638 on the strength of Ext.P1 delivery note, which however was intercepted by the first respondent on 23.05.2010 issuing Ext.P2 notice under Section 47 (2) of KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax and thereby demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein, which forms the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the defects noted in Ext.P2, particularly with regard to non-mentioning of the date and time of journey in Ext.P1 and such other incidental aspects are not grave enough so as to sustain the detention. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, obviously Ext.P1 delivery note does not contain time and date, which stands rather admitted. It is also stated that the delivery note has not been prepared using 'double sided carbon' as contemplated under the Rule 58 (16) of KVAT Rules, which made the respondents to detain the vehicle as well as the goods, suspecting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit, which is not liable to be termed as arbitrary of illegal in any manner. W.P. (C) No. 15848 of 2010 : 2 : 5.This Court finds considerable force in the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, which however has to be adjudicated by the appellate authority. This Court does not find it necessary to detain the vehicle and goods any further and the same can be released to the petitioner, on condition that, the petitioner satisfies 50% of the liability shown as security deposit in Ext.P2, either in the form of 'cash' or 'bank guarantee' and executes a 'simple bond' for the balance amount; on which event, the vehicle as well as the goods detained as per Ext.P2 shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the rights and interests of the respondents to pursue adjudication proceedings, if any and the same shall be finalized in accordance with law, 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 kmd W.P. (C) No. 15848 of 2010 : 3 :