IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22549 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER --------------- MESSRS. BLUE STAR LIMITED, MILLENIUM PLAZA, ALINCHUVADU, MKK NAIR ROAD, COCHIN -682 023 REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.2, COMMERICAL TAXES, MINI CIVIL STATION, TIRUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 22549 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 7th August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The goods transported by the petitioner, who is stated as a registered dealer, in the vehicle bearing No.KL.53/4919 were intercepted on 03.08.2009, by the respondent pointing out the incriminating circumstances in Ext. P3 notice issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act. In response to the said notice, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 explanation stating that even though the goods, which were transported in the concerned vehicle bearing No.KL.07 BJ. 5670 as shown in Ext. P2 invoice dated 31.07.2009, were taken to the premises of the concerned person, the workers were not available and the premises remained closed since the vehicle reached there in the night, under the said circumstances, the petitioner had taken the goods to their dealer at Perinthalmanna where it was unloaded, in view of the pressing demand made from the part of the transporter to relieve the vehicle. The next day was Sunday and the goods could be taken from Perinthalmanna only in another W.P.(C) No. 22549 OF 2009 2 vehicle as shown in Ext. P3 and it was in the said circumstances, that the goods as well as the vehicle were intercepted by the respondent leading to Ext. P3, submits the learned Counsel. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits, with reference to the sequence of events as pointed out in Ext.P4 reply that, there is absolutely no question of evasion of tax and that the doubt and suspicion expressed by the respondent in Ext. P3 notice are quite wrong and unfounded. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is a registered dealer and necessary security deposit has already been collected from the petitioner at the time of granting registration. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the turn of events and also the undisputed facts and figures, this Court finds that no blame can be put on the respondent for having intercepted the vehicle as well as the goods, leading to Ext. P3 notice. However, the correctness and sustainability of the explanation offered from the part of the petitioner vide Ext. P4 has to be examined in the course of adjudication proceedings, before any finding is arrived at in this W.P.(C) No. 22549 OF 2009 3 regard. 5. However, considering the facts and circumstances, the respondent is directed to release the goods as well as the vehicle, forming the subject matter of Ext. P3, on condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the amount, either in cash or as Bank guarantee, as the case may be, to the extent as shown in Ext. P3, simultaneously furnishing a Bond for the balance amount. On satisfying the requirements as above, the vehicle as well as the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. It is also 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 expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk