IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34326 of 2009(I) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SHAHIR P.M. PROPRIETOR, M/S. METRO VENEERS, P.P.III/214, KOLLICKAL JUNCTION, PIRAVOM ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADV. MR..K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR SQUAD NO.1, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES PALAKKAD BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.K. SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 34326 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of transport of 'Plywood', on issuing Ext.P5 notice by the respondent under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). The transport in question was accompanied by Exts.P2 Invoice and Ext.P3 Delivery Note. The petitioner had effected payment of Advance Tax, which is seen endorsed in Ext.P3 Delivery Note. The reason for detention mentioned in Ext.P5 is that, the invoice as well as the Delivery Note was seen papered with the date of 19.11.2009, whereas the transport was intercepted only on 27.11.2009. Therefore the respondent suspected repeated transport of the goods by using the very same documents. 2. According to the petitioner the transport was delayed only due to non-availability of vehicle. It is evident from the vehicle number noticed in Exts.P2 & P3 that the W.P.(C)No. 34326 of 2009 -2- suspicion regarding repeated transport is baseless, is the contention. Since the endorsement with respect to payment of Advance Tax is there on the Delivery Note, there is no chance for repeated usage of such documents is the further contention. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. On considering facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the question whether there was any attempt at evasion of payment of tax is a matter need be decided on finalisation of adjudication under Section 47 (6) of the KVAT Act. But considering the fact that the petitioner had already effected payment of Advance Tax and also considering the fact that the petitioner is a registered dealer, I am of the opinion that the goods can be released pending finalisation of the adjudication on the petitioner furnishing Security Bond. 4. Under the above circumstances the respondent is directed to release the goods detained under Ext.P5 along W.P.(C)No. 34326 of 2009 -3- with the vehicle, on the petitioner furnishing Security Bond in the form prescribed under the KVAT Rules, for the value of security deposit demanded under Ext.P5, without sureties. 5. The competent authority shall finalise adjudication as contemplated under Section 47 (5) & (6) at the earliest, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of release of the goods. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/