IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26566 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.LEELA ENTERPRISES, BEAT NO.7, JEW TOWN,COCHIN-682002,REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING PARTNER C.K.LEELA. BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,IST CIRCLE, MATANCHERRY,COCHIN-2. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECKPOST,WALAYAR-689 698. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 26566 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner transported certain goods on the strength of Ext.P2 invoice, which were being transported from 'Udaipur' to the destination at Ernakulam in the vehicle bearing No.KA 01 C 8222, when the same was intercepted on the way, on 12.08.2010, issuing Ext.P3 notice under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein. The petitioner is challenging the said proceedings and has approached this Court seeking to have the goods released. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the main defect noted in Ext.P3 is that the petitioner/consignee is not a registered dealer. The petitioner has produced a copy of the registration certificate as borne by Ext.P1 showing that the petitioner is a registered dealer. The learned Government Pleader brought it to the notice of this Court that in Ext.P2, 'TIN' has not been given but for giving some other number, which is sought to be explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, it is nothing other than the 'KGST number' of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader submits that this is nothing but a conscious act being 2 WP(C) No. 26566/2010 pursued by the concerned assessee and that, unless and until the 'KGST number' was deliberately furnished by the petitioner, the same could not have been entered in the relevant records by the consignor in Udaipur. This being the position, the matter requires to be adjudicated, submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court finds considerable force in the said submission and holds that this is a matter which shall be adjudicated by way of appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. But for that reason, it is not necessary to detain the vehicle as well as the goods any further. The same shall be released to the petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner satisfies 50% of the security deposit demanded in Ext.P3 and furnishes a 'simple bond' for the balance amount. This will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which shall be finalised 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 accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc