IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19944 of 2010(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- PRABHA SPECIALITIES, VENNALA PO, COCHIN-28, REP. BY MANAGING PARTNER JITHESH. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.SADASIVAN SRI.JOY P.JOSE SRI.SOJAN MATHEW SRI.K.N.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI SRI.C.V.SASI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAXES,SQUAD NO.1V,ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.19944 of 2010-P ---------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Exts.P5 and P6 notices issued by the second respondent, detaining the vehicle as well as the goods, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit as specified therein, invoking the power and procedure under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged discrepancy noted in Exts.P5 and P6 do not warrant any detention and that the position, though well-explained by the petitioner, was not properly acted upon the second respondent, causing much loss and hardship to the petitioner; which in turn, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits with reference to the materials on record and on the basis of the instructions that, the goods were imported from China and were being transported to different destinations. In respect of the consignment, forming the subject matter of Ext.P5, W.P(C) No.19944 of 2010-P 2 the 'TIN' was not mentioned in the invoice and delivery note and this being the position, there is every chance for the consignee to have avoided the tax. With regard to the consignment in Ext.P6, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the goods were being taken to the destination in Kottayam, Thiruvananthapuram and Trichi. Eventhough the goods were carried in the very same vehicle, there was only one delivery note in respect of the different transactions and as per the said delivery note, the entire commodity was intended to be taken to the destination at 'Kottayam'. It is stated that the documents in support of the transaction did not reconcile with each other, which made the second respondent to doubt the evasion of tax and demand security deposit to the extent as specified therein. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incriminating circumstances noted in Exts.P5 and P6 are rather 'technical' in nature. It is also stated that the petitioner is a registered dealer in Kerala and that the apprehension expressed from the part of the second respondent in doubting evasion of tax is quite wrong and unfounded. 5. This Court finds that the correctness and sustainability of W.P(C) No.19944 of 2010-P 3 the proceedings can be brought to the light only in the course of proper adjudication. However, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods as well as the vehicle any further and that the same shall be released to the petitioner, on condition that the petitioner satisfies 50% of the security deposit demanded vide Exts.P5 and P6 either in the form of 'cash' or in the form of 'Bank Guarantee' and furnish security for the balance amount. This will be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if any, which shall be finalised in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, 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 ab