IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36038 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.S.JALALUDHEEN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.KERALA STORES, MASJID ROAD, BIG BAZAR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (INTELLIGENCE), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM. 4. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.36038 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Detention of Arecanut transported, intercepted on issuing Ext.P5 notice under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act), is under challenge in this writ petition. The transport was accompanied by delivery note, sale bill as well as purchase bills bearing Nos:15667 to 15676. The detaining authority noticed that the date mentioned in the delivery note and the sale bill is 8.12.2009, whereas the date on the purchase bill is 9.12.2009. That means the sale bill is seen issued even before the purchase. Further it is noticed that time of commencement of journey is not mentioned in the delivery note. Therefore genuineness of the transport and attempt at evasion of payment of tax were suspected. 2. According to the petitioner the discrepancy with respect to the date on the sale invoice and the purchase bills are not material, because the goods transported are items taken from the stock held by the petitioner. In support of the contention, extract of the stock register is produced as Ext.P2. 3. I am not entering upon any adjudication about merits W.P.(C).36038/09-Y 2 of the contentions, since an adjudication is contemplated under Section 47(6). The question whether there was any attempt on evasion of payment of tax is a matter which need be decided on finalisation of the said adjudication. I am of the opinion that the detention can be released pending finalisation of the adjudication on the basis of the petitioner furnishing proper security. 4. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to release the goods along with the vehicle, detained under Ext.P5 notice on condition of the petitioner furnishing Bank Guarantee for the value of security deposit demanded therein. 5. The competent authorities under Section 47(5) & (6) are directed to expedite the adjudication and to finalise the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of release of the goods. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb