IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19276 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BOSCH LIMITED, MCM BUILDING, NH BYE PASS, PADIVATTOM, KOCHI-682024. REPRESENTED BY MR.MANOJ VARMA-COMMERCIAL MANAGER. BY ADV. MR. JOSEPH JERARD SAMSON RODRIGUES MR. ROVIN RODRIGUES RESPONDENT: --------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAXES CHECK POST, WALAYAR. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 19276 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 22nd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of the Ext.P5 notice dt. 13.05.2010 issued by the respondent, under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act, pointing out some defects in respect of the delivery note, doubting evasion of tax and demanding the security deposit as specified therein. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transaction was only a 'stock transfer' and that the matter was clearly explained by submitting Ext.P7 reply before the respondent. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, with reference to the materials on record, submits that the action pursued by the respondent is perfectly in conformity with the relevant provisions of law. More so, when the defects noted with regard to the delivery note stands rather conceded and this being the position, the correctness of the actual facts and circumstances has to be brought to light in the course of proper adjudication proceedings. 4. This Court finds considerable force in the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader. In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition does not call for any interference. However, this Court W.P. (C) No. 19276 of 2010 : 2 : does not find it necessary to detain the goods any further and that the same can be released to the petitioner, on condition that, the petitioner satisfies the demand, either in cash or by furnishing 'bank guarantee' (for the amount demanded as security deposit in Ext.P5); on which event, the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the rights and interests of the respondent to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if any and the same shall be finalized in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd