IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26825 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. AQUAPLAST INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR.ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, DOOR NO:33/30-C, NEW NO:CC 41/37, PAVOOR ROAD, PADIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY P.O., ERNAKUAM, KOCHI-682 024. BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (TAXES), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO:1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKUAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.26825 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of goods transported by him, on the basis of Ext.P6 notice issued under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner has transported “Pipe Fittings” covered under Ext.P1, P2 and P3 invoices, from Faridabad to Kochi pursuant to interstate purchase made by them. The transport was effected through Railway. The goods were intercepted when it was carried from the Railway Station to the petitioner's business place. The reason for detention mentioned in Ext.P6 notice is that the transport of goods was not accompanied by the originals of Ext.P1 to P3 invoices and hence the documents accompanied the transport were not the documents prescribed in Section 46 (3) of the Act. Further allegation is that the consignee or the consignor have not complied with the conditions stipulated in Section 46(3) (d) and (e) of the Act. 2. Pursuant to the detention the petitioner submitted an explanation as evidenced by Ext.P8 and produced originals of Ext.P1 to P3 invoices. The petitioner also contended that Form 15 Delivery Note, as evidenced by Ext.P7, was accompanying the transport. However even after considering the explanation the W.P.(C).26825/09 2 3rd respondent took a stand that there was violation in complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 46(3)(d) and (e) and therefore the goods can be released only on deposit of the amount of security demanded under Ext.P6, is the stand taken. 3. The issue as to whether there was an attempt of evasion of tax is a matter which need be decided on finalisation of the adjudication as per Section 47(2) of the Act. This court at this stage cannot enter upon any of the findings regrading merits of the allegations raised with respect to the detention. However there is no necessity to detain the goods pending finalisation of the adjudication. Hence considering the proviso to Section 47 (2), I am of the opinion that the goods can be directed to be released pending finalisation of adjudication on the petitioner furnishing adequate security. 4. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to release the goods along with the vehicle detained under Ext.P6 and P9 on the petitioner depositing 50% of the amount of security demanded under Ext.P6 and on furnishing a security bond without sureties for the balance amount of 50%. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb