IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4787 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- C.K. HAMEED IQBAL, CEEKEY JEWELLERY, TM 20/836, THAZHEPALAM, TIRUR, HAVING BRANCH GLOBAL SPICES, 20/856, THAZHEPALAM, TIRUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENT: --------------- COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, BANGARA, MANJESHWAR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 4787 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 15th February , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext. P2 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, whereby the goods transported by the petitioner in the vehicle bearing No. MH-11/M-5039 were intercepted on 12.02.2010, suspecting evasion of tax and demanded security deposit to the extent as specified therein. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the observation made in Ext. P2 are not correct or sustainable as the materials on record would only lead to an inference otherwise, as sought to be projected in the Writ Petition. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that even though the petitioner has sought to explain the position with regard to the first defect by producing a copy of the registration as borne by Ext.P1, the second defect very much stands. It is stated that the claim of the petitioner that the goods transported were 'waste' papers, cannot be correct at all, in view of the outcome of the physical verification conducted in the course of inspection. It is submitted that issuance of Ext. P2 notice is very much in conformity with the statutory requirements and is not assailable under any circumstances. W.P.(C) No. 4787 OF 2010 2 4. After hearing both the sides, it is seen that there is serious dispute with regard to the factual position involved and that the matter requires to be adjudicated by the appropriate authority. However, this Court finds that the goods need not be detained any further and that the same can be released to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the amount demanded by way of security deposit as shown in Ext. P2 and furnishes a simple bond for the balance amount. On satisfying the requirements as above, the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. However, this will be without prejudice to the right of the respondent to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which exercise 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 the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk