IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25336 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ A.MUHAMMED, PEEKAY PETROLEUM, HPC DEALER, PALLOOR P.O., P.O.CHOKLI, MAHE. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, C.T.C.P.KUNHIPPALLY, P.O.CHOMBALA. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IVTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: app/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.25336 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by detention of the petroleum products transported by him to the outlet owned by him situated Chokli in Mahe. The transport was from the filling station of H.P. Corporation at Kozhikode. The transport was accompanied by Ext.P1 invoice and Form 27 B declaration. As required under Circular of the Commissioner of the Commercial Taxes, the transport was also accompanied by a 'journey movement pass', which is insisted for consignment of Petrol and Diesel from Kerala to Mahe. The transport was declared at the check post at Kunhippally. But it was detained by the first respondent on issuing Ext.P4 notice. The detention was for the reason that the 'journey movement pass' produced at the check post, which was issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Kozhikode, contained different description about the goods. As per the invoice, the consignment pertains to 8,000 liters of M.S. and 4,000 liters of HSD, whereas the W.P.(C) No.25336 of 2009 2 'journey movement pass' is for 12,000 liters of HSD. The Government Pleader on instructions submitted that even the amount mentioned in the 'journey movement pass' is varying with that of the invoice and declaration. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that even assuming that the 'journey movement pass' pertains to a different transport, there cannot be any evasion of tax attributable since the transport was accompanied by invoice and the Form 27B declaration, and since it was declared at the exist check post. 3. However, the question whether there was any attempt at evasion of payment of tax and whether the petitioner is liable to be imposed with penalty is to be decided in a process of adjudication. It is noticed that subsequent to Ext.P4, the first respondent had issued another notice as evidenced by Ext.P6, amending the contents to the effect that the detention is under section 29A() of the KGST Act, since goods under transport is covered under the provisions of KGST Act. Under the above circumstances the onward transport of the goods can be W.P.(C) No.25336 of 2009 3 permitted only on condition of payment of adequate security.. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to release the goods detained under Ext.P4 and 6, on the petitioner furnishing Bank Guarantee for 50% of the amount demanded in Ext.P6 and on furnishing security Bond as provided under Rules, without sureties, for the balance amount of 50%. The adjudicating authority under the provisions of the KGST Act will finalise the proceedings after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible at any rate within a period of one month from the date release of the goods. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. app/-