IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2010 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32901 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------- C.V.MARIYAM W/O.K.R.YOUSEF, AGED 35 YEARS, 'KENZ', NAYATTUPARA, PO.POTTANOOR, THALASSERI TALUK, KANNOOR DISTRICT, PROPRIETRIX, S.M.WOOD INDUSTRIES AND RAHMANIYA SAW MILL, NAYATTUPARA,KANNOOR DISTRICT, BY ADV. SRI. P.K. RAMKUMAR RESPONDENT : -------------------- INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, SQUAD NO.1, THRISSUR – 1. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32901 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of a consignment of wooden logs transported to her place of business. The consignment was intercepted by the 1st respondent on issuing Ext.P1 notice under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). The transport was accompanied by Delivery Note and purchase agreement/Bill in Form 8E. The reason for detention noted in Ext.P1 is that the transport was not accompanied with the measurement list, which would have enabled verification of quantity of timber. Another reason noted is that, the Form 8E purchase agreement/Bill pertains to another dealer and the numbering of document was not seen made by machine numbering. 2. According to the petitioner, the mistake in W.P.(C).32901/10-K -2- Form 8E with respect to the name of the dealer, typed at its bottom, was only due to an inadvertence occurred while taking the print out from a DTP centre. It is also stated that the measurement list was lost from the custody of the driver during the course of transit. However, it is submitted that the original of Form 8E as well as the measurement list was produced before the 1st respondent. 3. Learned Government Pleader on the basis of instructions submitted that on verification of the original of the Delivery Note, it was revealed that the same was not prepared using carbon paper. It is submitted that the 1st respondent suspected evasion in payment of tax on the ground that the petitioner was attempting to have unaccounted deal with respect to the timber in question. Therefore the demand of security deposit was on reasonable basis, is the submission. 4. In this writ petition, this court need not take any decision regarding the dispute as to whether there was any attempt in evasion of payment of tax. Section 47 of the W.P.(C).32901/10-K -3- KVAT Act contemplates a full-fledged enquiry which is to be followed on the basis of Ext.P1 notice. However, I am of the view that the goods need not be detained pending finalisation of such enquiry, if the petitioner provides sufficient security for release of the same. 5. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the goods along with vehicle, which is detained pursuant to Ext.P1 notice, on the petitioner furnishing Security Bond to the value demanded under Ext.P1, in the form prescribed under the KVAT Rules, without sureties. 6. The competent authority will finalise the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb