IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20769 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MESSRS.DRIVE INDIA ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS LIMITED, NO.11, 287A & 287 B CHAKIATH EASTATE, CHERANALLOOR P.O., VIA EDAPALLY, KOCHI 682034. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.11, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 20769 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 notice issued under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act when, the vehicle bearing No. KL7 BH 5264 and the goods (1008 mobile phones) were inspected on 18.7.2009, pointing out the incriminating circumstances and demanding security to the extent as specified therein. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the goods were being transported by way of 'stock transfer' from the premises of the petitioner in Tamilnadu, to the premises in Kerala and that it will not attract any tax liability at all. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there is absolutely no question of any evasion of tax and that all the necessary documents were accompanying the goods, despite which the goods have been intercepted by the respondents absolutely for no reason at all. The learned counsel further submits that the reason stated in Ext.P3 that WPC. No. 20769 OF 2009 : 2 : the entire documents as per Section 46(3) of the VAT Act were not there, is factually incorrect. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that no document was ever produced to show that the goods were actually transported by rail and the interception was admittedly when the goods were being transported in a lorry. Learned Government Pleader relies on the stipulation under Clause (e) of Section 46(3) in respect of the transfer of goods by air or rail and points out that the petitioner has not filed any such declaration before the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only declaration if at all necessary was to be under Sec.46 (3) (d) in form 8(f). In the case of Sec. 46 (3) (e), no separate form is specified and that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish the declaration as specified in form 8 (f) before the concerned authority. The contention as to the absence of particular form in respect of Section 46 (3) (e) is not successfully rebutted from the part of the respondent. WPC. No. 20769 OF 2009 : 3 : 6. In the above circumstances the petitioner is directed to produce form 8(f) declaration before the respondent and on satisfying the requirement as above, the respondent shall consider the same along with Ext.P2 (which has not been referred to in Col.9 of Ext.P3) and also the lorry receipt referred to in Ext.P2 and the goods shall be released to the petitioner subject to the further condition that the petitioner executes a 'self bond' for the amount shown in Ext.P3. This is without prejudice to the right of the respondent to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which shall be finalized in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible; at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ' (P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) jma