IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15173 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.I.F.B.INDUSTRIES LTD., CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, KARSHAKA ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY IT'S BRANCH ACCOUNTANT, MR.SOURAV GOSWAMI. BY ADV. MS. K.LATHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT), SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AT ATTINGAL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 15173 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 20th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging correctness and sustainability of Ext.P3 notice issued under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act, whereby the goods brought by the petitioner have been detained by the Check Post Authorities, referring to incriminating circumstances including that proper delivery note was not there to support the transportation. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that detention is quite wrong, so far as the goods were being transported from Goa and it was very much in conformity with the statutory requirements. It is also pointed out that Ext.P2 delivery note is as per the law applicable in the consignor's State and this being the position, the defects noted are not legally correct or sustainable. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the only documents which supported the transportation were Ext.P1(A) and Ext.P1 (B) as noted in Ext.P3; which is stated as not correct from the part of the petitioner, pointing out that Ext.P2 was also there. It is very much obvious from Ext.P2 that it does not contain the seal of any of the check posts, while such seals are very much discernible from Ext. P1(A) and (B) invoices. It is also asserted on behalf of the respondents that transportation was not in conformity with the statutory requirements, in so far as the infringement of Rule 58 W.P. (C) No. 15173 of 2010 : 2 : (16) was very much there. This being the position, the action pursued by the respondents in detaining the goods as per Ext.P3 is not assailable and no interference is warranted, submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court finds considerable force in the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, especially with regard to the incriminating circumstances with reference to Ext.P2. However, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of the case, since the matter requires to be adjudicated by the concerned authority in accordance with law, in the due course. However, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods any further and that the same can be released to the petitioner, on condition that, the petitioner satisfies the demand either in cash or by furnishing 'bank guarantee' (for the amount demanded as security deposit in Ext.P3); on which event, the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the rights and interests of the respondents to pursue the 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