IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9413 of 2010(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.V.GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, HILL PRODUCT DEALER, VANDIPALAYAM, CHENKARA, BRANCH OFFICE AT MANJERI. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAXES SQUAD NO.III, KOLLAM-691021. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SQUAD NO.III, KOLLAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXES, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 9413 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The goods transported by the petitioner in the vehicle No. KL 10/AB 6121 were intercepted by the first respondent on 18.03.2010 issuing Ext.P2 notice under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act doubting evasion of tax; thus demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein, which forms the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits on instructions, that the detention is perfectly within the four walls of law and not assailable under any circumstance. It is stated that the invoice No. is '4' which could not have been there, by the end of the financial year and in the said circumstance, necessary clarification was sought for from the assessing authority. Accordingly, it has been informed that the invoices 'upto No. 10' have already been disclosed by the petitioner with respect to the transaction in the previous month; which by itself reveal that the present invoice bearing No. 4, so as to support the transportation cannot be a genuine one. It is also stated that the 'Form 15 delivery note' is not in the prescribed manner and that WP(C) No.9413/2010 2 the entries have been written manually, instead of using carbon as provided in the statute. 3. This court finds that the merits however have to be considered and finalised by adjudicating the authority concerned; more so, when the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Bill No. 4 has actually been issued from the 'Manjeri branch' office and that there is no discrepancy at all. However, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the vehicle as well as the goods any further, which could be released to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner furnishes 'Bank Guarantee' or cash deposit equal to the amount of Security Deposit demanded. On satisfying the requirement as above, 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 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc