IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14817 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THOMAS RAJAN, PRIYA GLASS, 23/1483, PANNIYANKARA, KALLAI P.O., KOZHIKKODE-673003. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.T.G.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECKPOST, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 14817 of 2010-B ---------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 notice issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, whereby the goods allegedly sold on credit to the consignee, were detained by the respondent, suspecting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit as specified therein. 2. The contention raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that, the reason stated in Ext.P3, that the consignee is not a registered dealer is not a ground for detention of goods demanding security. Reliance is placed on the decision rendered by this Court in Rams V. Sales Tax Officer & others (1993) 91 STC 216). 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits with reference to the materials on record that, Ext.P1 invoice is in Form No.8, which is to be used only in the case of a 'registered dealer'. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner/consignor himself has chosen to approach this Court in view of the fact that, it is only a 'credit sale'. The challenge raised W.P(C) No. 14817 of 2010-B 2 from the part of the third respondent, as put forth by the learned Government Pleader with regard to the proper form of the invoice is not successfully rebutted from the part of the petitioner. That apart, Ext.P1 invoice does not reveal that the petitioner had effected only a 'credit sale'. This Court, prima facie does not find any tenable ground to impugn the action pursued by the respondent and this is a matter which is to be adjudicated in the due course. 5. However this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods any further and the same can be released to the parties concerned, on satisfying the security deposit of Rs.18,070/- as demanded in Ext.P3, either by cash or in the form of 'bank guarantee'. On satisfying the requirement as above, the vehicle as well the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if any, which 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 this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy//