IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34310 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. DATACOM SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., SOUTH POINT BUILDING, 39/6481, RAVIPURAM, COCHIN-15, REPRESENTED BY ITS ACCOUNTS OFFICER MR. ABDULLA.M.N. BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTE BY SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR. 3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KVAT CIRCLE-11, THRIPUNITHURA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.34310 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Detention of transport of telecommunication equipments is under challenge. The reason for detention as evidenced by Ext.P5 notice, issued under Section 47 (2), is that the consignment was supported only by Form-JJ delivery note issued under the TNVAT Act and only photocopy of the invoices was available. It is further noticed that the value of the articles were not mentioned in the invoice, but only in the Form-JJ delivery note. Therefore the authorities suspected attempt of multiple transactions using the invoice and copy of the Form-JJ and Delivery Note. 2. According to the petitioner the equipments were imported for own use and since there was no tax liability the consignor has dispatched the original invoice by courier, and a copy was only entrusted with the transporter. The mistake was quite genuine and it is contended that on issuing Ext.P5 notice, the original invoice was produced before the 2nd respondent, but the same was not accepted by that authority. It is pointed out that the apprehension expressed has no basis, because the goods is intended for own use and there is no tax liability with respect W.P.(C).34310/09-G 2 to the transaction. 3. Having considered facts and circumstances I am of the opinion that the question whether there was any attempt at evasion of payment of tax with respect to the transport, is a matter which need be decided on finalisation of the adjudication contemplated under Section 47(6) of the Act. Having considered the fact that the petitioner is a registered dealer and the goods are intended for own use, I am of the opinion that the goods can be released pending finalisation of the adjudication on the petitioner furnishing proper security. 4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to release the goods detained under Ext.P5 notice along with the vehicle, on the petitioner furnishing security bond in the form provided under the KVAT Rules, without sureties, for the value of security deposit demanded under Ext.P5. 5. The competent authorities under Section 47(5) and (6) are directed to expedite the adjudication and to finalise the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from date of release of the goods. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb