IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4383 of 2008(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- POLY AUGUSTINE, KARAKKADA TIMBERS, ATHIYODI P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENT: --------------- INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.I, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =================== W.P.(C) NO. 4383 OF 2008 V =========================== Dated this the 6 th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, he had purchased certain quantity of timber from the Kerala Forest Department and Ext.P1 is the invoice. Ext.P2 is shown as the pass issued by the Forest Department. It is stated that when the timber was transported on the strength of Exts.P1, P2 and Ext.P4 delivery note, the same was detained by the respondent. From Ext.P3 detention notice, it is seen that the irregularity noticed is that the date and journey time was not mentioned in the delivery note. Petitioner refers to Ext.P4 delivery note and submits that in Column.3 invoice date has been indicated by him and that tallies with Ext.P1. It is submitted that it is only a minor clerical mistake that has resulted in the detention of the consignment WPC 4383/08 :2 : and the vehicle. On this basis, petitioner submits that there is absolutely no justification for the detention. 2. Having regard to the nature of the irregularity that is noticed in Ext.P3, whether it was an inadvertent omission or a deliberate is a matter for enquiry for the respondents. In the meantime, taking into account the fact that the petitioner is a registered dealer, I do not think that the goods need be detained pending adjudication. However, the learned Government Pleader expresses an apprehension that it is not clear from Ext.P3 whether the timber transported were the same that was purchased by the petitioner by Ext.P1 invoice and covered by Ext.P2 forest pass. That again can be a matter for verification by the respondent. Therefore, I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the respondent shall verify whether the timber transported by the petitioner are the same as purchased by Exts.P1 and covered by P2 WPC 4383/08 :3 : and if it is so, the goods under detention along with the truck will be released to the petitioner on their executing a bond without sureties pending adjudication into the allegations in Ext.P3. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp