IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25589 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.V. JAYAN, PROPRIETOR, BEST WOOD, OPP. APOLLO TYRES, PERAMBRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (LT) O/O. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA – 688 001 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR. 680 307. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 25589 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 13th August , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the KVAT Act, with TIN 32010971264, is running a proprietory concern, engaged in the manufacture and sale of furniture. In the course of business transaction, the petitioner was transporting certain furniture from Perambra to Balaramapuram in the vehicle bearing No. KL-45C-9738, when it was intercepted on the way on 12.08.2010, issuing Ext.P3 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the only insinuating circumstance noted in Ext. P3 is that the furniture manufactured and transported by the petitioner are of good quality Rosewood and Teak wood and there was 'under- valuation'. The case of the petitioner is that eventhough the position was sought to be explained with reference to the actual W.P.(C) No. 25589 OF 2010 2 quality of the materials, the same was not accepted by the concerned authority and detention still continues, which made the petitioner to approach this Court. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that this is a matter which requires to be adjudicated by the concerned authority so as to ascertain the actual facts and figures. But for that reason, it is not necessary to detain the goods any further and the same shall be released to the petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner executes a 'simple bond' for the amount of security deposit demanded in Ext.P3 . This will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if any, which shall be finalised 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. lk