IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20627 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.ACUMEN MARKETING SOLUTIONS (P) LTD., 36,3RD CORSS (WEST), 8TH MAIN ROAD, VASSANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE- 560052, A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, REP.BY SRI.SRINIVASAN.P., OPERATIONS MANAGER, SOUTH. BY ADV. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN SMT.G.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 20627 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6 th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner transported certain materials pursuant to the order stated as received from M/s.Lenovo (I) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore. The case of the petitioner is that, they agreed to supply advertisement materials to M/s.Lenovo (I) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore for a consideration of Rs.4,89,835/- on the strength of Ext.P2 purchase order dated 08.06.2010. As per the instruction given to the petitioner from M/s.Lenovo (I) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, a portion of the goods were directed to be taken to the agent M/s. Digital World, Thrissur and it was accordingly, the goods were being transported in the vehicle (the number of which is not discernible from Ext.P1 order) when intercepted by the respondent on 26.06.2010, issuing Ext.P1 notice under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent specified therein. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, there is absolutely no element of sale in the instant transaction and that the petitioner is not a registered dealer under the KVAT Act/Rules. The goods transported were never intended for sale and it is only for advertisement purpose and the products had to be got satisfied and approved by the party who placed work order, i.e., M/s. Lenova India Private Limited, 2 WP(C) No. 20627/2010 Bangalore and it was thereby had a .... portion of the materials diverted to M/s.Digital World, Thrissur since the consignee at Thrissur is not prepared to satisfy the security deposit as demanded in Ext.P1. The petitioner wants to take the materials and accordingly approach before this Court seeking for appropriate reliefs. 3. The learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits on instructions that, the course and conduct pursued by the petitioner cannot but be deprecated as there was no document to sustain transportation. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, no document whatsoever was support the transaction was there except a delivery note, which has consciously not been produced by the petitioner before this Court. The learned Government Pleader submits that, the delivery note which accompanied transportation revealed that the value of the goods was only Rs.70,000/-, whereas the purchase list as borne by Ext.P2 reveals that the total value is Rs.4,89,835/- thus issuing that the delivery note which accompanied the transportation was never in connection with the goods in question but referring to some other transaction virtually making transportation without accompanying materials as contemplated under any relevant provisions of law. This being the position, the detention made by the respondents vide Ext.P1 is sought to be sustained. It is also stated that, there was no invoice at the time of 3 WP(C) No. 20627/2010 transportation and that the petitioner is not a registered dealer as admitted by the petitioner himself. 4. This Court finds considerable force in the submission made by the learned Government Pleader. The matter requires to be considered in detail and adjudicated based on the evidence to be adduced with reference to the relevant documents and other aspects by the appropriate authority. But for this ...... this Court finds that, there is no need to detain the goods any further and the same shall be released to the petitioner on satisfying the security deposit either in the form of 'Bank Guarantee' or by furnishing such other security under relevant provisions of law, on which event the goods shall be returned to the petitioner forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the adjudication proceedings as above and the same shall be finalised 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