IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 33485 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.MARBLE GALLERY, OPP.CIVIL STATION, CALICUT-678020,REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER VIJU THOMAS. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR. 4. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONR OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2009 , THE COURT ON DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.33485 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of Granite slabs transported from Madurai to Calicut. The 1st respondent intercepted the consignment and issued Ext.P10 notice under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) based on allegation that description of the goods mentioned in the document accompanied the transport, as “rejected Granite slabs” is found to be not correct on physical verification, and it is found that the goods under transport are good quality Granite slabs which will worth market value @ Rs.100/- per Sq:Ft:. Therefore attempt at evasion of payment of tax was suspected and the petitioner was directed to furnish security deposit based on the valuation estimated. 2. According to the petitioner, there was no attempt at evasion of payment of tax and the goods transported are only rejected and broken Granite slabs. It is further stated that another vehicle transporting the same quality of goods, which accompanied the transport in question, has already been cleared from the check post as per Ext.P6. Therefore he is seeking direction for release of the goods. W.P.(C).33485/09-E 2 3. Having considered facts and circumstances I am of the opinion that whether the goods are of good quality granites or rejected granites, as well as to whether there is any attempt at evasion of payment of tax, are matters to be decided on finalisation of the adjudication. Hence I am of the opinion that the goods detained can be released on the petitioner furnishing proper security. 4. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to release the goods along with the vehicle detained under Ext.P10 notice on the petitioner depositing advance tax to the tune of 50% of the amount of security deposit demanded and on the petitioner furnishing security bond in the form provided under the KVAT Rules for the value of the amount of security deposit demanded under Ext.P10, without sureties. 5. The competent authority under Section 47 is directed to finalise the adjudication proceedings after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of release of the goods. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. Okb