IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15779 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M/S SHASTHA STEELS (P) LTD, NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KANJIKODU PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. M.SUBHASH. BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN JAMES RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, THIRUVANNTHAPURAM. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, INTELLIGENCE SQUAD NO II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 15779 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee on the rolls of the Assistant Commissioner Special Circle, Palakkad. According to it, on the basis of an order from another registered dealer, the petitioner sent one consignment covered by Ext.P1. It is the further case of the petitioner that time of commencement of the journey was stated as 15.45 p.m. The vehicle was taken from Kanjikode and stopped near Chandra Nagar for some repairs of the vehicle, and therefore the driver could not ply his vehicle at the prescribed time. The vehicle commenced journey from Chandra Nagar with a delay of four hours after repair of battery and bulbs. The vehicle was intercepted in the High Way at about 19.30 hours and issued Ext.P2 notice under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Petitioner sent Ext.P2 reply with the bills from the workshop on 22.5.2008. On the next day, another order was issued by the second respondent rejecting the reply and directing to furnish the security demanded in the notice (Ext.P4). Thereafter, petitioner filed a detailed reply Ext.P5. In Ext.P4, which is issued after referring to Ext.P3 reply, it is stated that the vehicle can be released only after paying the security deposit demanded in the notice. In WPC.15779/2008. 2 Ext.P4 it is also stated that the delay, as claimed by the petitioner, is for the reason that it was caused due to some repair works in the lighting of the lorry. Ext.P3 is stated to be against the oral version of the driver given at the time of interception. It is stated that the oral version of the lorry driver was that he has left the vehicle at the road side near Manappullakara and he has visited two houses at Chittur. It is also stated that moreover, the slip produced for proving the repair charges is not signed and without any serial number and the same is not available with the driver at the time of interception. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Sojan James, who also relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in Assistant Commissioner Anti Evasion Commercial Taxes, Bharatpur v. M/s. Amtek India Limited (6 VST 242). I heard learned Government Pleader also, who reiterates what is stated in Exts.P3 and P4. 3. I do not think that the petitioner has succeeded in judicial review to overturn Ext.P4. I feel however that the goods can be directed to be released on the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for the entire amount demanded in Ext.P2. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: WPC.15779/2008. 3 If the petitioner furnishes bank guarantee for the entire amount demanded in Ext.P2, the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. The adjudicating process shall be completed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to rely on the decision of the Apex Court, which is referred to above. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb