IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29895 of 2010(J) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M/S.S.M.S. BUILDERS, DOOR NO.41/1295/B5, BEEVI COMPLEX. C.P. UMMER ROAD, KOCHI-682 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SMT.SMITHA GUPTA. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U., SRI.K.N. SREEKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.-VIII, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.VIII, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. KUNAL SALES CORPORATION, 41/1277, C.P. UMMER ROAD, KOCHI-682 035. 4. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC & LT), ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-15. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES), GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1, R2, R4 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.K. SHAMSUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.29895 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is aggrieved by interception of a transport on issuing Ext.P8 notice under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Petitioner placed Ext.P3 order with the consignor for purchase of imported flooring tiles. In Ext.P3, TIN particulars of the petitioner was specifically shown. The purchase was effected on the basis of Ext.P7 invoice, which accompanied the transport, revealing collection of tax due on the sale. 2. The reason for detention mentioned in Ext.P8 is that, from the documents which accompanied the transport the consignee's liability to pay tax was not proved, inspite of the fact that the goods were carried in bulk quantities and intended for re-sale. It is stated by the petitioner that, in the invoice which accompanied the transport, TIN particulars of the petitioner was omitted to be mentioned due to a bonafide omission on the part of the consignor. It is further stated that, on detention of the goods, the petitioner had produced Ext.P10 certificate obtained from the assessing authority, W.P.(C).29895/10-J -2- certifying that the petitioner is a registered dealer. But inspite of production of such evidence the authority is not releasing the goods, is the complaint. 3. Heard learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents. It is pointed out that the invoice which accompanied the transport was issued in Form No.8B which is intended for customers who do not claim input tax credit. Since the petitioner is a dealer and since the goods are intended for re- sale, the invoice should have been drawn in form No.8, as per the relevant rule. Therefore it is contended that the consignment was not accompanied by proper documents as required under law. 4. The question to be decided is whether the transport was genuine and as to whether there was any attempt in evasion of payment of tax. Since an enquiry as contemplated under Section 47 should follow the detention, I am not entering upon any adjudication on merits of the rival contentions. I am of the opinion that pending finalisation of enquiry the goods can be released on the petitioner furnishing proper security. It is contended that the petitioner is a registered dealer who is regularly paying tax. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing W.P.(C).29895/10-J -3- the 1st respondent to release the goods detained under Ext.P8, along with vehicle, on the petitioner furnishing security bond in the form prescribed under the KVAT Rules, without sureties, for the value of security deposit demanded in Ext.P8. 6. The competent Enquiry Officer is directed to finalise the enquiry after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of release of the goods. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb