IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1231 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): M/S.ESKAYPE AGENCIES, CC NO.41/1734 A, IST FLOOR, ARANGATH ROAD, COCHIN - 682 018, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SEBI K.PIUS. BY ADV. MR.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KVAT 2ND CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. M/S.TRACKON COURIERS PVT.LTD., 2ND FLOOR NORTH PLAZA, NORTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, COCHIN - 682 018. R3 BY ADV. MR.C.SINOY BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRAMENON, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.1231 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The goods in question allegedly in furtherance to the stock transfer through a carrier namely the third respondent were intercepted by the first respondent leading issuance of Ext.P6, demanding security to the extent of Rs.22,410/-, which is ought to be challenged in this writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the goods were actually in transit to the third respondent for conveyance by road. However, without any consent and concurrence of the petitioner, the said goods were transported by the third respondent by rail and on reaching Ernakulam , the goods were carrying by the driver of the third respondent in different vehicles to third respondent's premises situated in Ernakulam. After carrying the load in the first step, the vehicle records were to be taken by the driver and left -2- W.P.(C) No.1129 of 2010 office and it was while returning the goods along with goods couriered ......... as the vehicle as well as goods transported leading to the issuance of Ext.P4 holding that no valid documents, as contemplated by Section 46(3) of the KVAT Act, the goods being transported. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on receipt of Ext.P4 notice, Ext.P5 reply was submitted pointing out that the actual facts and figures and also submitting that actual rate of tax was only 4% and as such the demand for 25% of security is unwarranted under the circumstances. After taking note of the contention raised by the petitioner, ........... by the first respondent as 4% as proposed by the petitioner and accordingly a revised Ext.P4 was issued Ext.P6 whereby the security amount of Rs.70,020/- as shown in Ext.P4 was brought down to Rs.22,410/-, as shown in Ext.P6 which is the subject matter to challenge further by filing this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner -3- W.P.(C) No.1129 of 2010 submits that the reasons shown in Ext. P6 are not correct or suspected particularly the stipulations issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, vide Ext.P8. The learned Government Pleader submits that the defect as shown in Ext.P4 is very much conceded by the petitioner in Ext.P5 reply ....... and the goods being transported without any valid documents. However, the rate of tax applicable has been accordingly modified as 4%as in Ext.P6. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this court does not find it necessary to detain the goods belonging to the petitioner and the same can be released to the petitioner on condition that 50% of the amount covered by Ext.P5 and furnish as a simple bond in respect of the balance amount. On satisfying the said requirement, the goods covered under Ext.P6 shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the right of the respondent to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which, however, shall be finalised as -4- W.P.(C) No.1129 of 2010 expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 2 months. It is also mentioned that this will also without prejudice to the right of the department to proceed with further steps without any violation of the provisions ......... P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON (JUDGE) nl