IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28984 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- M/S.KOYENCO PRESTIGE MOTORS PVT.LTD. NH 47, VYTTILA, AROOR BYE PASS, MARADU, REP. BY P.T.JIJISH. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR 2. ASST.COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE, KVAT KOZHIKODE. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 28984 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P7. Ext.P7 is a notice issued under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. It contains the following reasons: “(1) Photostat copies of the invoices are seen accompanied with the goods instead of originals. (2) The goods under transport are furniture items in bulk quantity, which are meant for use of the consignee. Even though the consignee is a registered dealer, he is not authorised to deal with the goods under transport. (3) In the absence of the original invoices and considering the quantity of goods, it has every chance to suspect resale of the goods by evading payment of tax due to the exchequer. Hence genuineness of the documents and bonafides of the transport is suspected.” 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. Petitioner is a dealer registered under the KVAT Act as evidenced by Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, it is in the process of setting up a show room and for that purpose has taken a premises on lease WPC.28984/2008. 2 as evidenced by Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is the letter of intent. Exts.P4 and P4(a) are the copies of invoices. According to the petitioner, petitioner has also produced Form 16 declaration. Petitioner has enclosed along with the reply a certificate from the architect, it is stated. Regarding the non- accompaniment of the consignment with the original invoices, it is stated that the original invoices have been sent by the vendor through courier and the duplicate copy has accompanied the consignment and the original and triplicate copy of the invoices were sent directly to the petitioner. Ext.P8 is the reply. Having considered the facts, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: If the petitioner executes a bond without sureties for the amount demanded in Ext.P7 and also surrenders the original invoice, the goods detained under Ext.P7 will be released to the petitioner. The adjudication will be completed at the earliest, and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb