IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21066 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.KIRBI BUILDING SYSTEMS INDIA LTD, PLOT NO.8-15, IDA PH-III. PASHAMYLARAM, MEDAK DIST - 502307, ANDRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SENIOR ENGINEER, MR.PRITO FRANCIS. BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR - 678 624. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 21066 OF 2008 G ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P6 and a direction is sought to release the goods detained under Ext.P6. Case of the petitioner in short is as follows. Petitioner is a limited company having factory at Andra Pradesh. It received a service order from PTL Enterprises Ltd. Based on that interstate purchase order, the petitioner began to send materials in knocked down condition by raising one parental bill which is produced as Ext.P2. The entire materials were transported in different vehicles along with zero value invoice by referring to the parental invoice. It is further stated that more than five loads with similar zero value invoices by referring this parental bill were arrived and delivered and there was no problem. It is stated that there was no tax on an interstate purchase and the tax applicable is only CST in Andra Pradesh which is duly raised and paid. But the 2nd respondent had intercepted the goods transported with one similar invoice, Ext.P4. It is also stated that all the documents under law were WPC.21066/08 : 2 : accompanied the goods. According to the petitioner, it is only because of the difficulty in transporting all the goods in one lorry alone, that was transported in different lorries and in the first lorry there was a parental invoice and the subsequent consignments are brought in different lorries. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that even after the filing of the writ petition, some lorry loads were passed without raising any query. The petitioner has already filed Exts.P7 and P7A objections. It is also submitted that this is a case where the petitioner may be permitted to transport the goods on execution of a bond. 2. I heard learned Government Pleader also. Writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and take a decision on Exts.P7 and P7A in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE