IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 9381 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- AHAMMED SABIR K.Y., S/O.YOUSEPH, RESIDING AT MAMMOO HAJI HOUSE, KIZHOOR, KASARAGOD, M/S.BHARATH GLASS & PLY WOODS, RUBY TOWER, NULIPADHY, KASARAGOD, (PROPRIETOR). BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR SQUAD NO.IV, ERNAKULAM, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.IV, ERNAKULAM, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24. 3. THE DY. COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., COMMERCIAL TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.9381 of 2010-W ---------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the detention of the goods transported by him in the vehicle bearing No.KL-43/2292, which was intercepted by the first respondent issuing notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act on 16.3.2010. 2. The reason for detention as obvious from Ext.P5, reveals that the goods were imported by a firm in Delhi, which does not have any registration in Kerala. The goods were imported from China to the Cochin Port and thereafter the goods are stated as sold to the petitioner, who, after taking delivery of the same, was transporting the materials to Kasargod. At this point, interception was made issuing Ext.P5, doubting evasion of tax, demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein, which in turn is subjected to challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. The learned Government Pleader with reference to the materials on record submits that Ext.P1 invoice has been issued to the petitioner in Kerala, by the Delhi dealer showing their address in Delhi, who admittedly does not have any registration under the W.P(C) No.9381 of 2010-W 2 KVAT Act. This shows that there is clear evasion of tax and the petitioner is not justified in seeking to have the goods released after setting aside the notice of detention; submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. After considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that Ext.P5 detention ordered by the first respondent is prima facie proper and justified, being within the four walls of the law. However, this Court does not propose to go into the merits or demerits of the case for the time being, as it is a matter to be considered and adjudicated in appropriate proceedings. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to continue the detention of the goods as well as the vehicle and that the same can be released to the petitioner, on condition that the petitioner furnishes a Bank Guarantee for the security amount shown in Ext.P5. On satisfying the said requirement, the vehicle as well as the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which shall be finalised in accordance with law, as expeditiously as W.P(C) No.9381 of 2010-W 3 possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab