IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20526 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTRURES LTD., PETRONET LNG PROJECT LTD., PUTHUVYPEEN PO, KOCHI 682 508. 2. SURETECH INFRSTRUCTURE PVT.LTD., AURTECH HOUSE, 48, JAWAHAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KAMOTHE, PANVEL, NAVI MUMBAI-410 209. BY ADV. MR. A.KUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.2, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 20526 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 2nd day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The first petitioner is a registered dealer under the KVAT Act, while the second petitioner is a company in Maharashtra, from whom the first petitioner had taken the particular machinery on lease, to complete the work awarded to the first petitioner, in Kerala. Based on the works order obtained, the first petitioner entered into an agreement with the second petitioner for lease as borne by Ext.P1, wherein the terms and conditions have been given. Ext. P2 'delivery note' is with regard to the transportation of the above machinery from Mumbai, wherein consignor has been correctly shown as the second petitioner herein and the consignee, as the first petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, the work was completed and the machinery was being taken back to the second petitioner in Mumbai, along with the copy of Ext.P2 delivery notice, which bears the endorsements made by the concerned check post authorities when the machinery was brought in to Kerala, as mentioned above. It is in the course of such taking back, the machinery was intercepted by the respondent, issuing notice under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act referring to certain defects as extracted below: W.P. (C) No. 20526 of 2010 : 2 : “There is no proper document to transport the materials (vibro hammer) from Tirur to Mumbai prescribed under the KVAT Act, 2003. Instead of this, one one triplicate delivery note bearing No, 1899092 dated 21.1.2010 written in ink 9 without carbon copy is already transported from Mumbai to Kochi and a photocopy of the letter addressed to Suretech Infrastructures P. Ltd. Mumbai. In the above circumstances, the goods transported without any proper document is suspected.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, immediately on receipt of Ext.P3, the first petitioner filed Ext.P4 explanation pointing out the sequence of events in crystal-clear terms, producing requisite materials, including Ext.P5 declaration. The learned counsel for the petitioners also places reliance on the the identity of the machinery as discernible from the relevant records including Ext.P7 insurance policy, covering the said machinery as well. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that, proper documents were not accompanying the transport, which made the respondent to detain the vehicle and goods, issuing Ext.P3. 4 Whether the case put forth by the petitioner is correct or not, is a matter which can be brought to light only in adjudication proceedings. However, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods any further and that the same shall be released to the petitioners forthwith, on condition that, the petitioners execute 'simple bond' to the satisfaction of the respondent. This will be without prejudice to the W.P. (C) No. 20526 of 2010 : 3 : rights and interests of the respondent to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if any and the same shall be finalized in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd