IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21588 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.H. HAMEED, PROPRIETOR, BADARIYA TIMBER DEPOT, EDAVETTY, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO. 1., COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ----------------------------------------- WP(C)NO. 21588 OF 2009 -------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF JULY 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the interception of the vehicle as well as the goods as per Ext.P1 notice issued under Section 47(2) of the Act pointing out the discrepancies, particularly that the invoice issued is in form No.8 and hence doubting evasion of tax, demanding to furnish security deposit to the extent as specified therein. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a 'regular tax payer' and that there is no evasion of tax at all and the goods are being transported with valid documents contemplated under Sec.46(3) of the Act. The learned Govt.Pleader submits that as per Rule 58(10), the goods ought to have been accompanied with required form (From 8B); the consignee being an WP(C)NO. 21588 OF 2009 2 end-customer, whereas the invoice accompanied was only in form 8. This being the position, no blame can be put on the intercepting officer who issued Ext.P1. Considering the facts and circumstances, especially when goods as well as vehicle continue to be detained, thereby will a direction to the 1st respondent to release the goods and the vehicle, on a condition that the petitioner shall pay 50% of the amount shown in Ext.P1 and furnish a 'personal bond' for the balance amount. This will be without prejudice to the right of the 1st respondent to pursue adjudication proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1; which shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON (JUDGE) pkk