IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35109 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.POLYMER DESIGNS AND MOULDINGS, 13/904-A, THOPPIL, THRIKKAKKARA, COCHIN-21, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI.N.J.RAPHEL. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, FIRST CIRCLE, KALAMASSERRY. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, RAPID ACTION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (TAXES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.35109 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of transport of imported sanitary wares, on issuing Ext.P4 notice under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). According to the petitioner the goods under transport were imported from China through the Cochin Port and the consignment was effected to their own godown at Thrikkakara. It is stated that the transport was accompanied with bill of lading, bill of entry and documents regarding customs clearance and payment of duty. On a perusal of Ext.P4 it is noticed that the detention is on the ground that consignee is not a registered dealer and only the bill of entry was accompanying. The petitioner had produced Ext.P1 certificate of registration which will show that the petitioner/consignee is a registered dealer and he is authorised to deal with the goods which are now under detention. 2. It is evident from the records as well as from Ext.P4 notice that the goods detained are imported goods. From the bill of entry it is revealed that the petitioner is the importer of the goods. It is further contended by the petitioner that since W.P.(C).35109/09-G 2 the goods under transport is not a notified item there is no necessity for delivery note to be accompanied. 3. The question whether there was any attempt at evasion of payment of tax need not be adjudicated at this stage in view of the procedure to be followed under Section 47 of the Act. But pending finalisation of the adjudication proceedings as contemplated under Section 47(5) and (6), I am of the opinion that the goods can be released on the petitioner furnishing proper security. 4. Under the above circumstances the 2nd respondent is directed to release the goods detained under Ext.P4 along with the vehicle on the petitioner making payment of the amount demanded under Ext.P4 towards Advance Tax, without prejudice to completion of adjudication under Section 47(6) and without prejudice to imposition of penalty if ultimately found liable. 5. The competent authorities under Section 47 (5) and (6) are directed to expedite the adjudication and to finalise the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of release of the goods. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb