IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23636 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MARIKAR ENGINEERS PRIVATE LTD., MARIKAR BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR ABDUL SATHAR. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAXES CHECK POST, AMARAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 23636 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 20th August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The goods transported by the petitioner in the vehicle bearing No. HR.55E/6868 were intercepted on 13.08.2009 issuing Ext. P9 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, pointing out various incriminating circumstances . In response to the said notice, the petitioner preferred Ext.P10 reply, upon which the first respondent issued revised notice as borne by Ex.P11. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no rationale for the interception of the vehicle as well as the goods, in so far as such a course was pursued by the concerned respondent earlier as well, leading to Ex. P5 and on substantiating the true state of affairs, the vehicle as well as the goods were released. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the concerned goods were brought from outside, in connection with setting up of the unit of the petitioner and the petitioner has placed reliance on Ext.P6 photographs showing the construction activities being pursued in the premises, making W.P.(C) No. 23636 OF 2009 2 use of the goods procured. The learned Counsel further submits that the present consignment is only part of the goods originally purchased by the petitioner and it forms the balance of the earlier consignment, which formed the subject matter of Ext. P5. 3. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that there was no discrepancy with regard to the materials brought in the earlier consignment and it was accordingly, that the goods were released, after conducting physical verification and on verifying the documents produced from the part of the petitioner. Unlike this, in the present instance, there is black and white difference between the materials shown in the documents accompanying the goods and the actual nature of the goods revealed on physical verification. Reference is also made to the averments made by the petitioner in Ext. P10 submitted in response to Ext. P9 notice. 4. The petitioner has got another case as to the rate of tax adopted by the first respondent as shown in Ext.P11, ( computed at 12.5%) , whereas the commodity , if at all exigible to tax will only come under Entry 3(8)(k) of the Third Schedule of the KVAT Act. W.P.(C) No. 23636 OF 2009 3 5. Considering facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods as well as the vehicle any further and that the same can be released to the petitioner, on satisfying 1/3rd of the liability cast upon them vide Ext. P11, either in the form of 'Bank Guarantee' or Cash deposit; simultaneously executing a 'personal 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 first respondent to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which exercise shall be finalised, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 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