IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5249 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.MADRAS AUTO SERIVICE,35/3034 A, M.K.VILOPPILLY ROAD,SOUTH PIPE LINE JN, THAMMANAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS ACCOUNTS MANAGER, V.SREENIVASAN. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, DEPT.OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,COMMERCIAL TAX CHECKPOST, WALAYAR. 2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER,COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPL.CIRCLE I,ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 5249 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P1 notice issued under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, whereby the goods transported from Bangalore to Kozhikode in vehicle bearing No. TN 31 AV 9595 were intercepted and detained for non satisfaction of the requirements under Section 46 (3) of the Act. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detention of the goods is not correct or proper, particularly for reason that Section 47 (2) is not at all attracted to the case in hand, it being an inter-state transport and not a transport within the State. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits with reference to the contents to the statement filed, that the idea and understanding of the petitioner as to the scope of Section 47 (2) is quite wrong and misconceived; simultaneously adding that the goods in transit were not supported by valid documents, but for a photo copy of the invoice and hence the course pursued by the concerned respondent doubting the evasion of tax, demanding security deposit is perfectly within the four walls of law and not assailable under any circumstance. WP(C) No.5249/2010 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the legal question raised by the petitioner in the Writ Petition as to the scope of Section 47 (2) might be left open and that the petitioner might be permitted to have the goods released on executing a 'simple bond', taking note of the fact that the petitioner is a registered dealer and is a major contributor of the revenue to the State. 4. Considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that the goods can be released to the petitioner, on condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the security deposit as shown in Ext.P1, simultaneously executing a 'simple bond' for the balance amount. On satisfying the said requirements, 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, 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