IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29584 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER ------------------ M/S.SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LTD., KUDILUMUKKU, KAKKANAD, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS C & F AGENT, MARTIN A.J. BY ADV. SRI.NOBLE MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.29584 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is aggrieved by interception of goods transported on the strength of invoice, on issuing Ext.P2 notice under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The goods under transport were 20 Nos. of Refrigerators despatched from the place of business of the petitioner at Kakkanadu to a distributor at Harippad. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was sent from Kakkanadu during the night of 17.9.2010 and the goods could not be unloaded at the place of business of the dealer at Harippad on the next day morning, due to an unexpected Harthal declared on that area and since the shop of the dealer remained closed on that day. The next day (19.9.2010) was a Holiday, being Sunday. When the goods were brought from the place of residence of the driver of the vehicle to the consignee, on 20.9.2010 at about 9.30 A.M., the 1st respondent intercepted and Ext.P2 notice was issued. W.P.(C).29584/10-W -2- 2. On a perusal of Ext.P2 it is evident that the reason for detention mentioned therein is that eventhough the invoice is dated 17.9.2010, the goods were seen transported only on 20.9.2010. Hence suspecting that more than one consignment might have been sent using the same documents, genuineness of the transport as well as evasion of payment of tax was questioned. Petitioner was requested to pay security deposit to the tune of Rs.54,730/-. 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the interception was after three days of despatch of the goods, whereas the maximum time which will be taken for the transport from Kakkanadu to the place of the consignee, will be only 2½ hours. Hence genuineness of the transport is under suspicion. 4. Question whether there was any attempt at evasion of payment of tax is a matter which need be decided on finalising the enquiry. According to the petitioner, they are registered dealers regularly paying tax and being a reputed company they will not indulge in any unaccounted or unauthorised deals. It is also submitted that the petitioner company was elected as the best tax payer during the previous year. W.P.(C).29584/10-W -3- 5. Having considered facts and circumstances I am of the opinion that pending finalisation of the enquiry proceeding the goods can be released on the petitioner furnishing proper security for the amount demanded under Ext.P2. 6. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to release the goods along with the vehicle, which is detained under Ext.P2, on the petitioner furnishing security bond as provided under the KVAT Rules, without sureties, for the amount demanded under Ext.P2. 7. The competent authority under Section 47 will finalise the enquiry after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of release of the goods. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb