IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2010 / 23RD ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31546 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ PETRONAS MARKETING (INDIA) PVT.LTD., C&FA-AGILITY LOGISTICS PVT.LTD., G.V.IYER ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-682 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.STEPHEN. BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH JERARD SAMSON RODRIGUES SRI.ROVIN RODRIGUES RESPONDENT: -------------------- THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.1, DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD PIN 691331. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 31546 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT A consignment of Engine Oil and Gear Box oil transported by the petitioner to a registered dealer at Palakkad was intercepted by the first respondent on issuing Ext.P3 notice, under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). The transport was accompanied by a tax invoice issued under Form No. 8, which showed TIN details of the consignee and collection of tax due with respect to the transaction. 2. Going by Ext.P3 notice it is revealed that the detention was due to the reason that, the transport was accompanied by three original copies of the invoice, and the 'duplicate' and 'triplicate' copies were not available as required under Rule 58 (11) of the KVAT Rules and Section 46 (3) of the KVAT Act. It is also mentioned in Ext.P3 that, eventhough the invoice was dated 07.10.2010 2 WP(C) No. 31546/2010 the transport was intercepted on 09.10.2010. Under such circumstances, it was suspected that the petitioner might have effected transport on an earlier occasion making use of the very same invoice. 3. According to the petitioner, the mistake happened due to technical error occurred in the newly installed accounting software. Eventhough the invoice was drawn in 'quadruplicate', when the print out was taken all the copies contained endorsement as 'original'. This was a bonafide mistake and there was no malafide intentions in the transport as alleged. It is further stated that the invoice itself contained a despatch seal mentioning the date as 08.10.2010 which will indicate that the transport was effected only on the next day of drawing of the invoice. 4. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand contended that, the discrepancy noted in Ext.P3 gives rise to a genuine doubt regarding bonafides of the transport and a reasonable apprehension with respect to attempt in evasion of 3 WP(C) No. 31546/2010 payment of tax. 5. Question as to whether the transport was genuine or as to whether there was any attempt in evasion of payment of tax are matters which need be decided on finalisation of the enquiry. I am of the opinion that the goods can be released pending enquiry on the petitioner furnishing security. 6. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the first respondent is directed to release the goods along with vehicles, detained as per Ext.P3 notice, on the petitioner furnishing security bond in the form prescribed under KVAT Rules, without sureties, for the value of security deposit demanded thereunder. 7. The competent enquiry officer will finalise the enquiry after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of release of the goods. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc