IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30299 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- E. SUDHEER KUMAR, PROPRIETOR, SHEEJA TIMBERS, MOORIYAD, KOZHIKODE – 2 BY ADV. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR (SPECIAL SQUAD), OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INT.) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 30299 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 notice issued under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act 2003. The consignment of timber logs transported on the strength of Ext.P2 invoice, Ext.P3 Delivery Note, and Ext.P4 Forest Pass, was intercepted by the 1st respondent on issuing Ext.P1 notice. According to the petitioner he is a registered dealer and the timber in question was sold to an individual customer after collecting tax due on the sale, as evidenced from Ext.P2 invoice, and therefore there was no attempt at evasion of payment of tax and the sale is fully accounted. 2. On a perusal of Ext.P1 notice it is revealed that the detention is based on an allegation that the bill is issued in Form No.8, instead of Form No.8 B, but the consignee is not a registered dealer. Hence Security Deposit is demanded based on a valuation estimated by the 1st W.P.(C)No. 30299 of 2009 -2- respondent, to the tune of double the amount of tax due. 3. Contention of the petitioner is that since it is a sale properly accounted, after collecting tax due thereon, it makes no difference with respect to liability for payment of tax, even if the bill is issued in Form No.8. Since there is no basis for the allegation of attempt at evasion of payment of tax, the defect pointed out is only a technical defect, at the most, which pertains a defect in the document accompanying the transport. Therefore the petitioner prays for a direction for release of the goods pending finalisation of the adjudication proceedings. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Having considered nature of the defects noticed in Ext.P1, I am of the opinion that the goods can be released on furnishing security as contemplated under the proviso to Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act. 5. In the result, the 1st respondent is directed release the goods detained under Ext.P1 on the petitioner W.P.(C)No. 30299 of 2009 -3- furnishing Security Bond in the form prescribed under the KVAT Rules, without sureties, for the value of Security Deposit demanded under Ext.P1. 6. The competent authority under Section 47 (5) & (6) is hereby directed to expedite the adjudication proceeding and to pass final orders, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible at any rate within a period of two months from the date of release of the goods. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/