IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21474 of 2008(F) PETITIONER: --------------------- M/S.SIEMENS LTD., 4, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, CHENNAI-600 034, REP. BY CHANDRA SEKARA MURTHI.R., JUNIOR COMMERCIAL EXECUTIVE BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR 2. M.U.M.HOSPITAL, MONIPPALLY PO., KOTTAYAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.21474 of 2008 F ------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 notice, by which a X-ray Unit, which was consigned from Vellore to a Hospital in Kottayam, has been detained. The following is the reason stated in Ext.P5: “The consignee is not a registered dealer under KVAT Act, 2003, whereas the consignor is a registered dealer under KVAT Act. Moreover, on verification of the purchase order, it was revealed that the purchase order was submitted to the Ernakulam Branch of the Consignor and initial payment of advance was also made by the consignee as per Cheque No.369315 of SBT, Monippally Branch dated 07.05.2008 for Rs.4,75,000/- to the Ernakulam Branch. In the circumstances Form No.16 produced by the consignee cannot be accepted on the ground that the consignor in collusion with the consignee instead of effecting sales from Ernakulam Branch, is attempting to transport on the strength of Form No.16 with an ulterior intention of evading payment of tax legitimately due to state Exchequer.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not have a manufacturing unit. Therefore, though Ext.P1 was addressed to the W.P.(C).NO.21474/08 :: 2 :: branch here at Cochin, the goods were consigned from Tamilnadu and the consignor is a registered dealer under the KVAT Act and consequently, there was an inter-state movement of goods. 3. In my view, the adjudication as proposed under Ext.P5 may go on. There does not seem to be any reason for the goods should be detained. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to release the goods detained under Ext.P5 on the petitioner executing a bond without sureties. It is made clear that the adjudication as proposed under Ext.P5 shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge