IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27649 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD., NEAR INFO PARK, EDACHIRA, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY BRANCH COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SRI.T.V.SCARIYACHAN. BY ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA AT CHENGANNUR-689 121. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE I, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 015. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY G.P.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 27649 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by interception on the transport of home appliances effected from their godown at Kalamassery to a registered dealer at Thiruvananthapuram. The goods were intercepted by 1st respondent on issuing Ext.P4 notice under section 47(2) of the Act. 2. The reason for detention mentioned in Ext.P4 is that the invoices which accompanied the transport would reveal that the goods were delivered on 28-8-2010 and loaded in the vehicle on the same day through a parcel agency but the vehicle was checked enroute only on the fourth day. The vehicle number, which is mentioned in the delivery challan as well as lorry receipts, is seen corrected. It is noticed that the number first written was scored off and other numbers were incorporated subsequently. Under the above circumstances, suspecting genuineness of the W.P.(C) No. 27649/2010 2 transport and thereby attempt of evasion of payment of tax, 1st respondent insisted for furnishing security to the tune of Rs.30,215/-. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that delivery challans were prepared at the time when the goods were removed from the godown of the petitioner to the parcel agency. It is stated that the goods were re-loaded in another vehicle by the parcel agency and the same was transported only after two days because of the intervening holidays. According to the petitioner, the correction of vehicle number in the documents was made bona fide, because of the shifting of the goods from the vehicle in which it was originally carried. It is also submitted that the petitioner as well as the consignee is a registered dealer under the KVAT Act and that the petitioner is regularly paying tax. Under such circumstances, direction is sought for releasing the goods without insisting payment of security deposit. 4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for W.P.(C) No. 27649/2010 3 respondents submitted that it was revealed that the transport was effected only on the fourth day of preparing the delivery challans, invoices and lorry receipts and since there were corrections effected in the documents with respect to the vehicle number and genuineness of the transport has to be doubted and there is suspicion of evasion of tax. 5. Question whether there was any attempt of evasion of tax is a matter which need be decided on completion of enquiry under section 47(2) of the KVAT Act. Therefore, I am not expressing any opinion on merits of the dispute. However, I am inclined to order release of the goods, pending finalization of the adjudication proceedings by the competent authority, on the petitioner furnishing security for the amount due. 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the goods along with vehicle detained under Ext.P4 notice, on the petitioner furnishing Security Bond, as provided under the KVAT W.P.(C) No. 27649/2010 4 Rules, without sureties, for the amount demanded under Ext.P4. 7. The Enquiry Officer under section 47 of the KVAT Act is directed to expedite the adjudication proceedings and to finalize the same, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of release of the goods. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.