IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7438 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- YEN CEE'S BLUE METALS PVT. LTD., 405/6, GANAPATHY BUILDING, R.V.P.PUDUR, PALAKKAD, HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT POLLACHIL, TAMILNADU, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.T.CHENTHAMARA. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.I, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECKPOST, ATHIKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 8/3 /2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 7438 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P7 notices issued under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act 2003, whereby the goods transported by the petitioner in two different vehicles were intercepted by the first respondent doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this sort of operation is being pursued by the respondents, as a matter of course, because of which, irreparable loss and hardships are being caused. The petitioner has filed Exts.P4 and P5 representations which are pending before the respondents 3 and 4. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits, with reference to the materials on record, that the grievance projected by the petitioner is not correct and that the 'modus operandi' is correctly shown in Ext.P7, which reveals that there is a mis classification of goods, in so far as the WPC No.7438/2010 .3 petitioner was transporting 'M sand' wrongly categorizing the same as 'dust' showing a lesser value. Some other incriminating circumstances are pointed out in Ext.P6 as well. This being the position, the detention is very much in conformity with the relevant provisions of law, submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount demanded as security deposit in Exts.P6 and P7, so as to facilitate release of the vehicle as well as the goods. The petitioner only prays in this writ petition, for a direction to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P4 and P5, by the concerned respondents. 5. In the above facts and circumstance, the petitioner is directed to satisfy the requirements in Exts.P6 and P7, on which event, the vehicle as well as the goods forming the subject matter of detention under Exts.P6 and P7 shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. 6. The respondents 3 and 4 are directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P4 and P5 representations respectively in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible WPC No.7438/2010 .3 at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE dpk