IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28252 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.POLU SONS, AZAD COMPLEX, 48/1748, K.K.KRISHNATH LANE, ELAMAKKARA REPRESENTED BY IT'S PARTNER SMT.USHA KAMAL. BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.28252 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, dealing in ready-made Garments. Challenge in this writ petition is against detention of a consignment of garments transported by the petitioner, on the basis of inter-state purchase effected on the basis of Ext.P1 and P2 invoices. The 2nd respondent had detained the transport at the border Checkpost at Walayar, on issuing Ext.P2 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act. The reason for detention mentioned therein is that, the transport was effected on the strength of triplicate and quadruplicate copies of invoices and such copies are not valid documents to be accompanied along with inter-state movement of goods. It is suspected that the original and duplicate will be used for repeated transportations. 2. According to the petitioner the original and duplicate copies of the invoices were in fact despatched by the consignor through courier service to the petitioner and it was only due to a bonafide omission that the triplicate and quadruplicate copies happened to be entrusted with the transporter. According to the W.P.(C).28252/09-B 2 petitioner there was absolutely no attempt at evasion of payment of tax. Hence direction is sought for release of the goods. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents. The question whether there was any attempt at evasion of payment of tax is a matter which is to be decided on finalisation of adjudication. However continued detention of the goods is not warranted till such finalisation. Hence I am of the opinion that the goods can be released to the petitioner on furnishing proper security. 4. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to release the goods along with the vehicle detained under Ext.P2 notice on the petitioner furnishing Bank guarantee for the amount of security deposit demanded therein. 5. The competent authority under Section 47 is directed to finalise the adjudication as early as possible, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of release of the goods. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb