IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22370 of 2010(U) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- DR.VIVISH THOMAS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.VEESCO BUILDING MATERIALS PVT. LTD., VETTOOR CENTRE, T.B.ROAD, KOTTAYAM, FACTORY-CHANNANIKKADU, RESIDING AT VETTOOR HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.II, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPT., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SECOND CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPT., KOTTAYAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO TAXES, GOVERNMENT OF KERAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 22370 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the detention of the goods, described as 'HIAB Crane', allegedly used for the purpose of loading and unloading cement paving blocks, which was taken in the vehicle bearing No. KL-5 AB 1939, by issuing Ext.P4 notice under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to an extent of Rs.3,78,750/-. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply, when the said notice was modified and Ext.P6 revised notice was issued demanding security deposit to an extent of Rs.4,67,125/- on 16.07.2010. The petitioner filed another explanation on the very same day as borne by Ext.P7, producing copies of the requisite materials in support of his case; but the detention still continues, which made the petitioner to approach this Court. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 19.07.2010, an interim order was passed by this Court to release the vehicle and goods on condition that the petitioner furnished security as contemplated by Rule 19(2) of the KVAT Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in spite of producing the original title deeds, sent by registered post, it is stated that the respondents are still insisting 2 WP(C) No. 22370/2010 for production of some other documents as well; which is only to harass the petitioner. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits with reference to the relevant provisions of law that, the security to be furnished by the petitioner is as contemplated under Rule 19(2) read with Rule 85 and this being the position, mere production of title deed is not relevant or sufficient and that the petitioner will have to produce encumbrance-free certificate, valuation certificate etc. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the very nature of the transaction is very much evident from the materials produced by the petitioner, which show that the 'Crane' was a 'second hand' one, purchased from Bangalore, on the strength of Ext.P1 invoice and that the lorry was taken on hire from one Vettoor Construction Engineers as borne by Ext.P2 agreement. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that, this is nothing but a clandestine arrangement between the petitioner and his wife who represented M/s. Vettoor Construction Engineers and that there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the Writ Petition. In any view of the matter, this Court finds that, to arrive at a finality as to the actual nature of the transaction, a 'fact adjudication' is very much essential and since it is stated that because of the detention, much loss and hardships are being caused to the petitioner, this Court finds that, necessary direction could be 3 WP(C) No. 22370/2010 given to the concerned respondents to finalise the adjudication under Section 47(5). 5. In the above circumstance, the respondents are directed to finalise the adjudication proceedings in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within ten days, on condition that the petitioner appears before the 1st respondent along with copies of this judgment and the Writ Petition, on 28.07.2010. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc