IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2162 of 2011(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MR.JACOB, MANAGING PARTNER, JAY JAY MARBLES, N.H.BYEPASS, THYKOODAM, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682 019. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR INTELLIGENCE SQUAD NO.V, OFFICE OF INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(INT.)COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE-673 004. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, INTELLIGENCE SQUAD NO.V,COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE-673 004. 3. THE INTELLIGENCE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES CHECKPOST WALAYAR-678 624. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT,.COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695001. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2162 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is challenging detention of transport effected on the basis of Ext.P2 notice issued under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). Petitioner is a dealer in Marble, who had purchased granite slabs, interstate. The vehicle was intercepted at the border check post on issuing Ext.P2 notice for the reason that on physical verification it was found that the quantity of granite slabs transported is in excess of the quantity mentioned in the accompanying invoice, by 631 sq. ft. Hence security deposit was demanded on the basis that there is attempt in evasion of payment of tax with respect to the excess quantity of 500 sq. ft. 2. According to the petitioner the allegations in Ext.P2 is not genuine and that the authority has not conducted any physical measurement of the goods, following the business practice prevailing with respect to the measurement of granite slabs. 3. Considering the contentions I am of the view that the dispute pertains to factual aspects. Going by the provisions, it is W.P.(C).2162/11 -2- evident that the detention need be followed by an adjudication as contemplated under Section 47(5) & (6). Therefore I am of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of directing the competent authority to expedite the proceedings for finalisation of the enquiry. 4. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to finalise the proceedings after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after conducting physical verification and measurement, if necessary with the assistance of any expert, at the expenses of the petitioner. A decision as contemplated under Section 47(6) shall be taken as early as possible, at any rate within a period of five days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Needless to say that necessary steps for release of the goods and the vehicle shall be taken on finalisation of the proceedings, without any further delay. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb W.P.(C).2162/11 -3-