IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16717 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.A.MANOJ KUMAR, PROPRIETOR, SUPER STAR ELECTRONICS, TOWN HALL ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN SMT. RANJITA.G. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.III, THRISSUR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MINI CIVIL STATION, IRINJALAKUDA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER Mr.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 16717 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the detention of the vehicle bearing No.KL7 AP 9195, carrying the goods belonging to the petitioner, which were imported through the Cochin Port and were being transported to Kunnamkulam. The vehicle was intercepted by the respondent on 13.06.2009 at 10.40 p.m., leading to Ext.P6 proceedings issued under Section 47 (2) of Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003; sustainability of which is subjected to challenge. The petitioner contends that the transportation of goods was very much in confirmity with the statutory prescription and that the goods being 'Antenna' as shown in Ext.P1, will attract the tax liability only at the rate of 4% as specified in the third schedule; which aspect is however rebutted from the part of the respondent, contending that the 'Antenna' can't be considered as an electronic item. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there is a clear contravention of the statutory prescription, in so far as the transportation of the goods was without any declaration form as contemplated under Section 46(3)(e) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The non possession of the declaration as above is rather admitted from the part of the petitioner as well and the only contention is that the petitioner was told by the Commercial Tax Officer of Cochin Port that, no such declaration was WPC NO.16717/2009 2 necessary, if the goods were being transported within Kerala. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the actual rate of tax payable for the time being. In view of the admitted fact that, there is non-compliance with Section 46(3) (e), the vehicle and goods concerned can be released, only on condition that the petitioner furnishes a Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.50,000/- before the respondent, simultaneously executing a 'simple bond' for the balance amount and on such an event, the vehicle as well as the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. It is made clear that, this will be without prejudice to the right of the respondent to pursue the adjudication proceedings; which exercise shall be finalised as early as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) dnc