IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20063 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M. YUSUF, PROPRIETOR, KHADEEJA TRADERS, MALLANGAI, UPPALA, KASARGOD DISTRICT BY ADV. MR. S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) MR. K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT: --------------- COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, BANGRA MANJESWAR, KASARGODE DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 20063 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 16th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the action pursued by the respondent in causing the vehicle as well as the goods belonging to petitioner detained absolutely for no reason at all. The case of the petitioner is that, the vehicle bearing No. KA 17 A 2790 carrying the goods was intercepted by the respondent on 9.7.2009 stating that, instead of the 'duplicate copy' intended to be carried by the transporter, the 'original' of the bill intended for the buyer was actually accompanying the goods, which made the respondent to issue Ext.P2 notice under Section 47 (2) KVAT Act, asking the petitioner to furnish security to the tune of Rs.24,506/- as shown therein. 2. Since the explanation offered by the petitioner was not acceptable to the respondent, the petitioner was constrained to satisfy the demand, lest the vehicle as well as the goods should be detained any further, causing irreparable loss and hardships to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner remitted the entire sum of Rs.24,506/ as borne by Ext.P3 chalan and sought the goods as well as the vehicle to be released. It was at this point, that the respondent sought to take a different turn and issued Ext.P4 notice dated 13.7.2009, pointing out the very same incriminating circumstance as to the 'nature of the copy WP (C) No. 20063 of 2009 : 2 : of the Bill' again demanding to furnish security to the tune of Rs.76,579/- which hence is subjected to challenge in the present Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the course being pursued by the respondent is nothing but to harass the petitioner and is not sustainable either on facts or in law. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, the respondent is entitled to issue corrected notice, if the rate of tax applicable for effecting the computation was not correct one and presumably this alone might be the reason, in view of the nature of the goods involved. The explanation does not appear to be palatable to this Court, as the incriminating circumstances noted in Ext.P2 and in Ext.P4 are one and the same. This being the position, this Court does not require any second thought to arrive at a finding that the detention of the goods as well as the vehicle is not justified any further. 5. In the above circumstances, there will be a direction to the respondent to release the vehicle as well as goods to the petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner executes a 'simple bond' in respect of the differential extent of the amount shown in Ext.P4. This however, will be without prejudice to the right of the respondent to WP (C) No. 20063 of 2009 : 3 : pursue the adjudication proceedings, which shall be finalized as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd