IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28634 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S. MARYGO INTERNATIONAL, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, M. ABDUL MAJEED, PALACE BUILDING, OPP: I.A.C, PUTHIYA ROAD, KALAMASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 28634 OF 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Transport of Kitchenware items from the place of business of the petitioner to their dealer at Thiruvananthapuram was intercepted by the second respondent, on issuing Ext.P2 notice as contemplated under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The reason for detention mentioned in Ext.P2 is that the invoice in Form No. 8, which accompanied the transport, was not the transportation copy. Hence it was suspected that the consignor might have transported another load using the transportation copy of the invoice. 2. Whether the transport was genuine and whether there was any attempt in evasion of payment of tax, is a matter which need be decided on completing the enquiry contemplated under Section 47. According to the petitioner the invoice which accompanied was only computer print out and the fact that it is a transportation copy could not be indicated therein specifically. According to learned Government Pleader, the Rules does not permit transport of any goods on the basis of the original of the invoice. But it should have been accompanied by the transportation copy. However I am not entering upon any adjudication on the merits of the dispute. I am of the opinion that the 2 WP(C) No. 28634/2010 goods need not be detained till finalisation of the enquiry, provided the petitioner furnishes adequate security. 2. Under the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to release the goods along with vehicle, which is detained under Ext.P2, on the petitioner furnishing Bank Guarantee for the value of security deposit demanded therein. 3. The competent enquiry officer shall finalise the proceedings after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date release of the goods. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc