IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27447 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.BHARATH PLYWOODS, ELAMBAKAPPILLY P.O., KOOVAPPADY, REP. BY ITS PARTNER N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.T.G.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY AT ALUVA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.27447 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is challenging detention of goods transported by him which was intercepted by the respondent, pursuant to notice issued as per Ext.P5. According to the petitioner he had effected transport of 'C' grade Commercial Plywoods from his business place at Koovappady, Perumbavoor, to the consignee at Palarivattom, Cochin. According to him the transport was accompanied by Ext.P2 and P3 invoices and Ext.P4 delivery note. The goods were intercepted by the respondent at Ankamaly on 25.9.2009 at 23.00 hrs. On interception it is noticed that the documents accompanied the transport is dated 26.9.2009 and further it is noticed that Ankamaly is not within the normal route of journey between Perumbavoor and Palarivattom. Hence genuineness of transport was doubted and attempt at evasion of payment of tax was suspected. By Ext.P5 the respondent demanded to furnish security deposit to the tune of Rs.46,037/- for permitting onward transport. 2. According to the petitioner the discrepancy in the date occurred only due to a bonafide mistake and the deviation W.P.(C).27447/09-A 2 in the normal route was adopted only because of the bad conditions of the road. Therefore he is seeking directions for release of the goods on the ground that the goods were transported on the basis of proper documents and there was no attempt at evasion of payment of any tax. 3. The question whether there was any attempt at evasion of payment of tax with respect to transport, need be decided in a process of adjudication as contemplated under Section 47 of the KVAT Act. It is not proper for this court to enter on merits of the rival contentions and to arrive at any conclusion on the above aspect. Having considered the facts and circumstances I am inclined to direct release of the goods on the petitioner furnishing proper security, in view of the proviso to Section 47(2) of the Act. 4. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to release the goods along with the vehicle detained under Ext.P5, on the petitioner furnishing Bank Guarantee for the amount demanded under Ext.P5. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb