IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21185 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD.,REGD.OFFICE AT AUTO CARS COMPOUND, ADALAT ROAD, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA STATE, A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY HAVING THEIR BRANCH OFFICE AMONG OTHER PLACES AT "SANTHI EMERALD", 3RD FLOOR, CHERUPARAMBATH ROAD,KADAVAN- THRA,ERNAKULAM.,KOCHI-682020,REP.BY SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, BRANCH COMMERCIAL CONTROLLER. BY ADV. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN SMT.G.DEEPA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, THE COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), KVAT SPECIAL CIRCLE, MATTANCHERRY AT ALUVA. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY Sr. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 21185 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 9th July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner transported various electrical items from the factory situated at Aurangabad in Maharashtra State to Kerala on the strength of Ext. P2, which however was intercepted by issuing Ext. P1 notice under Section 47(2) of KVAT Act doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent specified therein, which is sought to be intercepted in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the only defect noted in Ext.P1 is that 'no delivery note accompanied' the goods as contemplated under the 'Local Act' and hence evasion of tax is doubted. The learned Counsel submits that transportation of the materials from Maharashtra was supported by valid documents as borne by Ext. P3 and that similar course of transaction was being pursued for quite a W.P.(C) No. 21185 OF 2010 2 number of years, without any objection from the part of the respondents. Even otherwise, the objection now raised is stated as not correct or sustainable, being contrary to the scheme of the Statute. The learned Counsel also places reliance on Exts. P5 and P5 (a) filed before the second respondent in this regard. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that Ext.P3 was the only document, which accompanied the goods and that, by virtue of the mandate under Section 46(3) of the KVAT Act, there should have been proper delivery note or tax invoice or certificate of ownership to sustain the transportation. In the instant case, such stipulation is not strictly complied with and there is infringement of the statutory prescription under Section 46(3) of the KVAT Act. 4. Taking note of the rival contentions, this Court finds that this is a matter which requires to be adjudicated, to ascertain the true state of affairs. But for that reason it is not necessary to detain the goods any further. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the goods detained vide Ext. P1 to the petitioner forthwith on condition that the petitioner executes a W.P.(C) No. 21185 OF 2010 3 'simple bond' by the authorised signatory of the petitioner Company for the amount demanded as security deposit. It is made clear that this will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondents to pursue 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 the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk