IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19118 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.PODUVALSONS DEALERS & ENGINEERS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 035. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (FINANCE & ACCOUNTS) MR.G.SATISH. BY ADV. SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 19118 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The correctness and sustainability of Ext.P2 notice issued under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax At, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the tune of Rs.1,02,356/-, forms the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defect noted in the impugned notice is rather trivial or technical and that the non availability of the 'duplicate copy' of the invoice cannot be fatal in any manner so far as all the documents as envisaged under Section 46(3) very much accompanied the goods. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the course pursued by the concerned respondent is very much in conformity with the relevant provisions of law. The petitioner has not satisfied the requirement as provided under Rule 58 (11) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, in so far as the goods were not accompanied by the 'duplicate copy' but with the original and an extra copy. This being the position, there is a chance for utilising the 'transport copy' to transport further materials, thus evading the tax. 4. The factual position as to the absence of 'duplicate copy' of 2 WP(C) No. 19118/2010 the invoice stands rather conceded; though it is stated as a mistake at the hands of the transporter. The consequence however has to be adjudicated by way of appropriate proceedings. But for this reason alone, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods any further. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the respondent is directed to release the goods to the petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner satisfies 50% of the security deposit as demanded in Ext.P2 either in the form of 'cash' or in the form of 'Bank Guarantee' and furnishes security for the balance amount by way of 'simple bond'. This will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondent to pursue adjudication proceedings and the same shall be finalised in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc