IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5915 of 2009(H) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- TOWERVISION INDIA PVT.LTD. BUILDING NO. 29/372 ARAKKAL HOUSE, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR COMMERCIAL TAXES, SQUAD NO.3 MATTANCHERRY DEPT.OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPALLY, KOCHI 24. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 5915 OF 2009 H -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P5 and seeks a direction to release the goods without insisting on payment of tax or security. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is engaged in providing infrastructure to telecommunication operators. Petitioner is a registered dealer. Ext.P1 was issued detaining the goods under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act at Keezhillam near Muvattupuzha. It is alleged that the goods are intended to be delivered at Pathanamthitta under one Invoice and under another Invoice the goods are intended to be delivered at Mattannur, Kannur District and the vehicle entered at the Walayar Checkpost. Evasion was suspected. By an interim order, the respondent was directed to consider the objections and take a decision. Ext.P5 is the order. In Ext.P5, it is further stated that as per the Invoice, no CST is seen collected due to the consignor availing sales tax exemption and the sale is against C Form. WPC.5915/09 H 2 Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the purchase was for its own use, is ruled out. It is also stated that the petitioner has not proved that the goods in question are raw material/consumable for manufacture. It is further stated that no document in support of the transport of the goods from Pathanamthitta to Kannur is accompanied and there is no Delivery Note. It is also stated that the documents mentioned in the Reply were not produced at the time of interception, apparently, referring to the Form 16, which is referred to in the Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that C Form was given as required under Section 8(3) of the CST Act and C Form can be given by a dealer using goods in telecommunications. It is further pointed out that the goods were accompanied by the necessary Invoices and only because of the problem in Pathanamthitta, after unloading three Generators at Pathanamthitta, the vehicle was found at the place where it was found. 2. Having considered the facts, the Writ Petition is WPC.5915/09 H 3 disposed of modifying Exts.P1 and P5 and directing that if the petitioner furnishes simple bond for the amount, the goods will be released to the petitioner. However, the adjudication process will be proceeded with and concluded in accordance with law within two months from the date of production of a copy of this Judgment. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge