IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19271 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.MARVA GRANITES, REP.BY PROPRIETOR K.K.MOHAMMEDALI, POST KOORIKUZHI, KAIPAMANGALAM,KODUNGALOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR. C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. INTELLEGENCE INPSECTOR, SQUAD NO.II. COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II,O/O.THE INPSECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER(INT),COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, WALAYAR, 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT.,COMMERCIAL TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 19271 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 22nd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved of the course pursued by the respondents in detaining the vehicle as well as goods, issuing notice under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding the security deposit as specified therein. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner who is a registered dealer of granites, marbles, tiles .. etc under the KVAT Act had purchased some 'cutting waste' of marbles and granites from a vendor in Bangalore, as per Ext.P1 invoice and the same was being transported in the vehicle bearing No. KA01 D 2567, which was intercepted by the respondents on 12.6.2010 pointing out some defects as given below: i. On verification of accompanying documents it is seen that, the commodity noted as only 'kating waste' without mentioning the details of goods. ii. The quantity and rate has not mentioned in the invoice iii. Date of duplicate copy of the invoice No. 179 not a carbon impression. iv. The consignee is a registered dealer under CST act also, but the CST charged at the rate 13.5 % v. The vehicle with goods physically verified and it is found that there are 58 numbers of different types of Granite slabs in the W.P. (C) No. 19271 of 2010 : 2 : different measurement (details of measurement list attached). Hence total value estimated at Rs. 90,744/- The learned counsel submits that the defects noted in Ext.P2 are trivial, more so since the cutting waste procured and brought by the petitioner cannot have the market value as reflected in Ext.P2. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, with reference to the materials on record, submits that Ext.P1 invoice itself is not a proper document, in so far as the nature, quality and quantity of the materials stated as purchased by the petitioner have not been properly given therein. It is also to be noted that, the CST has been charged at the rate 13.5 %. The learned Government Pleader also places reliance on the factual measurements on physical verification of the materials, as given in Ext.P2, showing that much of the items were having requisite standard of slabs, which could not be considered as cutting wastes under any circumstances. 5. This Court finds considerable force in the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader. In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition does not call for any interference. However, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods any further and that the same can be released to the petitioner, on condition that, the petitioner satisfies the demand, either in cash or by furnishing 'bank guarantee' (for the amount demanded as security deposit in Ext.P2); on satisfying W.P. (C) No. 19271 of 2010 : 3 : the said requirement, the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. 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 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