IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26565 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.AUTOCOP (INDIA) PVT. LTD., 32/1101A, SHRUTHI, CHATHANGAT ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-25 REPRESENTED BY IT'S ACCOUNTS OFFICER, MR.ANIL KUMAR K.R. BY ADV. MS. K.LATHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT.) SPECIAL CIRCLE I, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.2, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 26565 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 20th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is a registered dealer under KVAT and CST Act, was transporting certain items through cargo service from Cochin to Trivandrum, allegedly by way of branch transfer. While the goods were in transit, it was intercepted on 17.8.2010 by the second respondent, issuing Ext. P4 notice under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security to the extent, as specified therein, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the defects noted in Ext. P4 are rather technical and the position has been explained by the petitioner, as borne by Ext. P5 reply. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, 4. One of the reasons noted in the impugned notice is that, the goods were not actually accompanied by Exts. P2 and P2 A invoices, though it was made a mention in the other documents. The other major defect noted is that, the delivery note has not been prepared using 'double sided carbon', as contemplated under the Rule 58 (16) of KVAT Rules, in response to which, it is stated that, the petitioner was not aware of the requirement in this regard. The time of commencement of the journey is W.P. (C) No. 26565 of 2010 :2: also not mentioned in Form 15, which is pointed out as another defect. It is very much evident that, the transportation effected by the petitioner was not in conformity with the relevant provisions of law. 5. This Court finds that, this is a matter, which requires to be adjudicated by the concerned authority, in accordance with law. But, for that reason, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods any further and the same shall be released to the petitioner forthwith; on condition that, the petitioner satisfies 50% of the liability shown as security deposit in Ext.P4 either in the form of 'cash' or 'bank guarantee' and executes a 'simple bond' for the balance amount. This will be without prejudice to the rights and interests of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if any and the same shall be finalized in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, 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. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd