IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25844 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SRI.BHAGAVATHY TRADERS, THURUTHUMMEL HOUSE, VADACODE P.O., KOCHI-682 021, REP. BY B.RAVINDRANATH, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF PROPRITRIX. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAMD DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. --------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 25844 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Goods covered under Ext.P2 and P3 invoices consigned by the petitioners from Kochi to Neyyattinkara was intercepted by the respondent at Cheekai Bye Pass and Ext.P5 notice was issued under the provisions of Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The reason for detention is that one of the invoice is dated 31.08.2009 whereas the transport was effected only on 09.09.2009. The other invoice is dated 07.09.2009. According to the petitioner, even though one of the invoices was drawn on 31.08.2009 the goods could not be transported due to the intervening holidays till 08.09.2009 and hence those goods were transported along with the goods covered under invoice dated 07.09.2009, in the same consignment. The authority found that the date of despatch in the consignment note was seen corrected and therefore re-use of the bill was suspected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. It is contended by the Government Pleader that since there inordinate delay in transporting the goods covered under the invoice dated 31.08.2009, the attempt at evasion of payment of tax is reasonably suspected. WPC NO.25844/2009 2 3. Having considered the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that where there was any evasion of payment of tax is a matter which is to be decided in the process of adjudication to be completed under Section 47 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. With respect to release of the goods and permitting onward transport, the respondent had demanded security to the tune of Rs.93,490/- vide Ext.P5. I am of the considered opinion that the transport can be permitted on the petitioner remitting 50% of security amount as advance tax and furnish security bond for the balance. 4. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to release the goods detained under Ext.P5 notice on the petitioner paying advance tax to the tune of 50% of the amount demanded therein and on furnishing Security Bond without sureties for the balance 50%. 5. It is made clear that payment of advance tax will not in any way preclude the authorities concerned from proceeding with adjudication and in imposing penalty if ultimately the petitioner is found liable. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc