IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8223 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S. PAREED, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF C.S. SHAMSU, S.P.C. INTERNATIONAL PMC XVII/725, A.M. ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.SUBHAKARAN SRI.P.P.VARUGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO. IV, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, ATHICODE, PALAKKAD. 3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 1st CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 8223 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated, this the 12th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has aggrieved of Ext.P3 notice issued under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, whereby the goods transported by the petitioner in the vehicle bearing No. KA 01 C 180 were intercepted on 08.03.2010 doubting evasion of tax and demanded security deposit to the extent as specified therein. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no rationale on the part of the respondents for detention of the vehicle as well as the goods, for the obvious reason that the material that was being transported by the petitioner was only for the use of manufacturing of 'packing cases'; whereas the notice issued by the respondents states that it was of sawn sizes intended for the purpose of 'construction'; besides the alleged under valuation. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits with reference to the materials on record that, it is actually not a case of 'under valuation' alone as put forth from the part of the petitioner; but a case of 'misclassification'. It has been specifically observed in Ext.P3 notice that the timber was of sawn sizes, fit enough WP(C) No.8223/2010 2 to be used for construction, which cannot be described as planks for packing cases. The petitioner has also not revealed the sizes particularly the thickness of the wooden planks transported by the petitioner anywhere in Ext.P3 objection filed before the intercepting authority or even in the Writ Petition filed before this Court. The correctness of the actual facts and figures can be brought to light only in the course of adjudication. However, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods as well as the vehicle any further and the same can be released to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the security deposit as demanded in Ext.P3; simultaneously furnishing a 'simple bond' for the balance amount. On satisfying the requirements as above, the vehicle as well as the goods forming the subject matter of Ext.P3 detention shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to pursue the adjudication; 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 accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc