IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23085 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.K.SATHAR, PADANNATTU PUTHENPURAYIL, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN-682 030. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.IV, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, MALAPPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA, PIN-679 322. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.IV, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, MALAPPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA, PIN-679 322. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, PALARIVATTAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 025. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P(C) No. 23085 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 26th July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court because of detention of the vehicle bearing No. KA.02/D-6566, in which the petitioner brought some marble slabs allegedly for 'own' use of the petitioner, who is constructing a building on the strength of Ext.P1 buiding permit issued by the concerned local authority. The goods were detained by the first respondent, issuing Ext.P3 notice issued under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act stating that there was excess quantity and thus doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent specified herein, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason with regard to the observation as to the excess quantity, which is very much evident from Exts. P1 and P2 and that the aforesaid mistake has actually W.P(C) No. 23085 OF 2010 2 been committed by the concerned authority, who issued Ext. P3 notice taking note of only the carpet area of the 'first floor' without any regard to the plinth area of the 'ground floor' and so also of the bathrooms. In view of urgency, the petitioner satisfied the security deposit as demanded in Ext. P3, but the vehicle is still at the premises because of pendency of the Writ Petition. 4. In the above circumstance, the respondents are directed to release the vehicle as well as the goods to the petitioner forthwith, if the demand in Ext.P3 is satisfied. The adjudication proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 shall be finalised in accordance with law , as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk