IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9453 of 2011(F) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MOHAMMED FEBIN, PROPRIETOR, SEEPISON WOOD PRODUCTS, PERUMBAVOOR, V.P.II/157-B2-C, MUDIKKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR RESIDING AT CHIRAKKAKUDY HOUSE, KANDANTHARA, ALLAPRA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, THE COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, BANGARA, MANJESHWAR.PIN- 671 323 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 9453 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is a registered dealer under Kerala Value Added Tax and Central Sales Tax Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that Pallet frames(packing cases) sold to Unique Enterprises, Aurangabad by the petitioner on its transportation from Perumbavoor to Aurangabad was intercepted. Thereupon, Ext.P2 notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 47 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, demanding security deposit of Rs. 59,860/- in lieu of detention. It is challenging the said order that this writ petition has been filed. 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that there was no attempt for evasion of tax. I do not think that it calls for consideration in this writ petition since it is a matter to be decided at the enquiry as contemplated under Section 47 of KVAT Act. The short question to be considered in this writ petition is whether the detained goods could be released to the petitioner on furnishing security bond without sureties. WPC.No.9453/2011 : 2 : The contention of the petitioner is that the goods under transport are pallet frames(packing cases) made of plywood whilst, according to the respondent, the goods under transport and now, detained is commercial plywood. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my attention Ext.P8 judgment of this Court passed in favour of the petitioner himself under similar circumstances. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader resisted the said contention and contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. However, having perused Ext.P8 judgment and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that there is absolutely no reason to take a different view in this matter. In fact, Ext.P8 order has been passed in a case filed by the petitioner himself. 4. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to release the goods along with the vehicle which were detained under WPC.No.9453/2011 : 3 : Ext.P2 to the petitioner on his furnishing security bond as provided under the relevant provisions in the KVAT Act and the KVAT Rules, without sureties, for the value demanded as per Ext.P2. Needless to say that this order would not stand in the way of the competent authority under section 47 of the KVAT Act, to finalize the enquiry in accordance with the law after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, expeditiously, at any rate, within period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge