IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18651 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SRI GEORGE THOMAS, PROPRIETOR, ALDOUS GLARE TRADE & EXPORTS, G.23, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682 036. BY ADV. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN SMT.G.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 18651 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The computer spare parts transported by the petitioner through courier were intercepted by the respondents, issuing Ext.P2 notice under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, on 12.6.2010, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein. It is noted in Ext.P2 that the consignment was not accompanied by the 'transport copy' of the invoice, while only a single copy of the invoice was there, which however, did not specify whether it was the 'original for the buyer' or duplicate for the purpose of transport, which made the respondents to doubt the genuineness of the document and in turn doubting the evasion of tax, demanding security deposit. W.P.(C) No.18651 of 2010 2 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the insinuating circumstance noted in Ext.P2 is rather technical and the petitioner being a registered dealer, the detention of the goods is not at all warranted. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, with reference to the mandate of Rule 58(11) of the KVAT Rules, submits that the action pursued by the respondents is perfectly within the four walls of law and not assailable under any circumstances, particularly, when the defect pointed out stands rather admitted on the part of the petitioner. 4. Considering the materials on record and the submissions made from either side, this Court finds that the goods need not be detained any further, and the same shall be released to the petitioner, on condition that the petitioner satisfies 50% of the security deposit demanded in Ext.P2 and furnishes a 'simple bond' for the balance amount. This, W.P.(C) No.18651 of 2010 3 however, will be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which shall be finalised, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 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. nj.