IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18955 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S C JOHNSON PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY M IQBAL, C & F AGENT, 43/632 A, PSM HOUSE, MASJID LANE, SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682018. BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH SMT.MANEESHA KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SQUAD NP.V, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 18955 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved of the detention of the goods which were being transported by the petitioner through a parcel service, issuing Ext.P8 notice under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, referring to the discrepancy with regard to the goods transported in relation to the goods shown in the invoices; in turn doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner in the course of 'stock transfer' from Chennai to Kerala and also from Chennai to Bangalore, had transported two different consignments on the same day, i.e., on 05.06.2010, on the strength of two different invoices as borne by Exts.P2 and P5 respectively. The goods forming the subject matter of Ext.P2 having a total number of 260 packets were intended to be transported from Chennai to Cochin; where as the goods covered by the Ext.P5 invoice having a total number 110 packets containing different items were intended to be transported from Chennai to Bangalore. Both the consignments were entrusted with the parcel service, along with the requisite documents. But by mistake at the hands of the transporter, the invoices happened to be interchanged; whereby Ext.P2 invoice which 2 WP(C) No.18955/2010 actually ought to have accompanied the goods in transit to Ernakulam happened to be sent over to Bangalore, while the other invoice, i.e., Ext.P5 which ought to have been sent to Bangalore was carried along with the goods sent to Ernakulam. The goods sent to Bangalore however got through and were taken to the destination. But the goods to Cochin were intercepted at Walayar, leading to issuance of Ext.P8 notice, referring to the discrepancies as pointed out therein. 3. On detention, the transporter was alerted by the petitioner, who issued Ext.P7 explanation conceding the mistake on their part. Immediately the petitioner rushed to the concerned respondent by filing Ext.P9 representation producing the relevant documents including Ext.P7 clarification issued by the transporter and also the original document which had been taken to Bangalore (copy of which has been produced before this Court as well, as borne by Ext.P2) bearing the seal of the Check post authorities in Karnataka. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced the originals of Ext.P2 invoice, which very much bears the seal and other endorsement overleaf, as made by the authorities of the Sales Tax Check post, Hosur Road, Karnataka. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the explanation offered from the part of the petitioner is very much 3 WP(C) No.18955/2010 plausible. The detained goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner executes a 'simple bond' for the requisite amount shown as security deposit. In view of the issuance of Ext.P8 notice under Section 47 (2) of the Act, the proceedings have to be taken to the logical conclusion and as such, the release of the goods will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings. This shall be finalized in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original of Ext.P2 produced by the petitioner along with the memo filed before this Court today can be returned to the petitioner after retaining photocopy. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc