IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19883 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.T.GEORGE, PROPRIETOR, JELBIN FURNITURE WORKS, CHEVOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.BEJOY CHERIYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR AT IRINJALAKUDA. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 19883 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court because of the interception of the vehicle as well as the goods transported by the petitioner in the goods carriage bearing No. KL 8E 2023, issuing Ext.P2 notice on 23.06.2010 at about 7 a.m., under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, there is absolutely no rationale on the part of the concerned respondent for having the vehicle and the goods detained, contending that the incriminating circumstances noted in Ext.P2 are trivial or technical. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the goods were actually loaded in the vehicle late in the night on 22.06.2010 and the journey commenced only in the morning, from the place near Chevoor (Thrissur District) to be taken to the consignee in Cherthala. It was while so, that the vehicle was intercepted by 7 a.m. on 23.06.2010, issuing Ext.P2. The learned counsel also submits that, in respect of the alleged under valuation, the quantum of security deposit demanded is not correct as the actual liability, if any, can only be with regard to the differential 2 WP(C) No.19883/2010 portion and nothing more. The allegation of under valuation as well as the actual position with regard to the 'number of Ext.P1 invoice' (wherein it has been shown as No.4) though were sought to be explained, the detention still continues; which made the petitioner to approach this Court. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that, Ext.P2 notice issued by the respondent is perfectly in conformity with the statutory prescription and that the transaction is very much doubted for the reasons stated therein. Eventhough nearly three months have elapsed, the invoice number admittedly is '4' and the version of the petitioner that he has effected only three sales prior to issuance of Ext.P1 invoice cannot be taken without a pinch of salt. Similarly, it is stated that the furniture concerned is made of 'teak wood' as such, the value shown in the invoice does not reflect the actual market value. The discrepancy with regard to the date of the invoice is also sought to be highlighted, stating that there is every reason for the respondent to doubt the transportation on the strength of the very same invoice. 5. Considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that this is a matter which requires to be adjudicated so as to bring the true state of affairs to light. However, this Court finds that the vehicle as the well as the goods need not be detained any further and the same shall be released to 3 WP(C) No.19883/2010 the petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner satisfies 50% of the liability by way of security deposit demanded in Ext.P2 either in the form of 'Cash/DD' or by way of 'Bank Guarantee'. This will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which shall be fnalised in accordance with law, 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