IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5969 of 2010(U) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SEBAN PUTHANPURACKAL, S.N.C.REALTORS, 12/240D,MDRA-70, OLIKKUZHI ROAD,VAZHAKALA, KAKKANAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.M.ANILKUMAR SRI.A.ANOOP RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, AMARAVILA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONR, COMMERCIAL TAX, AMARAVILA,TRIVANDRUM. 3. S.PALAIAH, S/O.SUBBIAH KONAR, D/NO.3158, METTUPATTI STREET, VEERASINGAMANI VILLAGE,SANKARANKOVIL TALUK, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.5969 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT An excavator transported by the petitioner in the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL17/E-835 was intercepted by the first respondent issuing Ext.P4 notice under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 noting down certain discrepancies and incriminating circumstances, whereby evasion of tax was doubted, demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Heard learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered dealer and that the excavator was brought from outside the State only in connection with a work contract and that after completing the work the machinery is to be taken back to the place from where it was brought and that W.P.(C) No.5969 of 2010 - 2 - absolutely no sale is intended within the State. Learned counsel has also placed a copy of the sub contract work order dated 29.1.2010 obtained to the petitioner as awarded by the principal contractor in support of the contentions raised in the writ petition. 4. The learned Government pleader submits that the materials on record are very much sufficient to arrive at an inference that the goods in transit were not accompanied by appropriate documents as contemplated under the relevant provisions of law and that the detention of the goods, particularly in view of the undisputed facts, is perfectly in order, as there is clear infringement of the statutory provisions prescribed under Section 46(3) of the VAT. 5. However, having heard the learned counsel on both sides and also taking note of the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the work awarded to the petitioner has to be completed in a time bound W.P.(C) No.5969 of 2010 - 3 - manner and that too, prior to the onset of Monsoon, this Court finds that, it is not necessary to detain the vehicle any further and that the same can be released to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner deposits fifty per cent of the security deposit as shown in Ext.P4 and executes a 'simple bond' for the balance amount. On satisfying such requirements, the vehicle as well as the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This, however, will be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to pursue adjudication proceedings, which shall be finalised in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns