IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35828 of 2010(C) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.M.K.STEELS, MANIYERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.ANAS. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.II, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. BY G.P. SRI C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kvm/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 35828 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated the Ist day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The detention of transport of MS Flat and M/S.Angles intercepted, on the basis of Ext.P2 notice issued under section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT Act) is under challenge in this writ petition . 2. According to the petitioner, they purchased the goods in question from a sister concern, namely, M/s. M.K. Associates on the basis of Ext.P1 invoice and Ext.P2 delivery note. The goods was intercepted while unloading the same at the godown of the petitioner, for the reason that the document which accompanied the transport revealed only an inter-state purchase of the goods by M/s. M.K.Associates, and there was no documents to show that the goods belongs to the petitioner. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that, there was a sale in favour of the petitioner, effected by M/s. M.K.Associates, by virtue of Ext.P1 invoice and Ext.P2 WPC 35828/10 2 delivery note. It is the case of the petitioner that Exts.P1 and P2 were also available with the vehicle and the respondent had refused to accept those documents, inspite the driver in charge of the vehicle was in possession of the same. 4. On a perusal of Ext.P3 notice , it is evident that the reason for detention stated is that there was no documents to the effect that the goods were purchased by the petitioner, despite the fact that the goods were attempted to be unloaded at the business place of the petitioner. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, even assuming, without admitting, that Exts.P1 and P2 were not accompanying along with the transport, no attempt of evasion of tax could not be attributed since advance tax had already been remitted with respect to the goods and the goods were already declared at the boarder check post. It is contended that, at the most, only allegation that can be raised is that there was attempt in evasion of tax with respect to the value addition. WPC 35828/10 3 5. On the other hand, the learned government Pleader contended that the transport, while intercepted, was not accompanied with proper documents as required under the provisions of the statue and therefore, the transport cannot be considered as genuine and, the attempt of evasion of tax is evident. 6. Whether there was any attempt for evasion of tax is a matter which need be ascertained while finalising the enquiry as contemplated under Section 47(5) and (6) . I am of the view that the goods can be released pending finalisation of such enquiry, on the petitioner furnishing security. 7. Hence, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to release the goods along with the vehicle detained by virtue of Ext.P3 notice, on the petitioner furnishing security bond for the value demanded thereunder, in the form prescribed under the KVAT Rules without sureties. 8. The competent authority shall expedite finalisation WPC 35828/10 4 of the enquiry contemplated under section 47 of the Act, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest possible , at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of release of the goods. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE. kvm/- WPC 35828/10 5