IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20727 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BLUE STAR LIMITED, MILLENIUM PLAZA, ALINCHUVADU, KOCHI-24, REPRESENTED BY ZACHARIA JOSEPH, BRANCH MANAGER. BY ADV. MR. VIJAYAN. K.U. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX INTELLIGENCE SQUAD NO.1, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES), GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 AND R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C. K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 20727 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 8th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the sustainability of the Ext.P5 modified notice issued under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act, suspecting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit, as specified therein. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the goods transported by the petitioner to the end customer at Trivandrum, based on Ext. P1 purchase order, were intercepted on 30.6.2010, by the first respondent, issuing Ext.P4 notice, pointing out the certain defects. On explaining the factual position, the contents of Ext.P4 notice were revised and modified notice was issued as borne by Ext.P5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, there is no rhyme or reason in detaining the goods by the respondents and the petitioner is very much entitled to get the work done by the sub contractor, to whom Ext. P2 work order has been awarded and eventhough the sub contractor explained the position before the concerned authorities, the goods are yet to be released. W.P. (C) No. 20727 of 2010 : 2 : 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, with reference to the contents of the statement filed before this Court, submits that, the goods were transported to the end customer on the strength of Ext. P3 invoice in 'Form 8 B'. Actually, in view of the admitted facts and sequence of events, the same should have been caused to be raised in the name of the sub-contractor M/s Technocrats Appliances in 'Form 8' and not in Form 8 B. The course sought to be pursued by the petitioner and the sub-contractor, keeping sub-contractor away from the arena, gives rise a chance to evade the tax involved in the works contract, submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. Considering the nature of the rival submissions, this Court does not propose to assume the role of a fact-finding agency; which is to be done by the appropriate authority in the course of adjudication. However, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods any further and the same shall be released to the petitioner, on condition that, the petitioner satisfies 50% of the liability shown as security deposit in Ext.P4, either in the form of 'cash' or 'bank guarantee' and furnishes security for the balance amount. This will be without prejudice to the rights and interests of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if any and the same shall be finalized in accordance with W.P. (C) No. 20727 of 2010 : 3 : law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. . P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd