IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23930 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- DTDC COURIER & CARGO LTD., APM BUILDING, NORTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, COCHIN - 18 REPRESENTED BY SHEDY C.A., ASSISTANT OPERATIONS MANAGER, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR MR. S.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO. VIII, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 23930 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 21st day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The goods belonging to the consignee Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd., Nellai purchased by the petitioner were intercepted by the respondent on 2.8.2009 issuing Ext.P4 notice under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act, whereby the goods as well as the vehicle bearing No. KL07 AJ 5374 were detained, pointing out the defects and suspecting evasion of tax, and demanding the security deposit as noted therein. 2. In response to the said notice, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 explanation and has approached this Court stating that, there is absolutely no rhyme or reason in detaining the vehicle as well as the goods. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well who submits that, the case put forth by the petitioner does not have any merit or bonafides. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the goods were purchased by the petitioner at the instance of the consignee as per Ext.P1 invoice dated '28.7.2009' and that the goods were entrusted to one M/s 'Lakshaya Cargo', to be taken to Ernakulam by rail, which accordingly was booked by the latter, as borne by Ext.P3 series. After reaching the railway station at Ernakulam, they were loaded in a hired WP (C) No. 23930 of 2009 : 2 : vehicle and the vehicle as well as the goods were intercepted enroute near Jose Junction, leading to issuance of Ext.P4. 5. It is to be noted that, altogether there were 17 bundles belonging to the consignee, which were stated as being transported along with 4 other bundles belonging to the petitioner, to be delivered else where. Ext.P3 series booking receipts show that the first one covered 7 bundles, second one covered 8 bundles and the 3rd one covered 6 bundles; thus giving a total of 21 bundles. Out of the 3 receipts, only the second one was booked on 31.7.2009 i.e. subsequent to the purchase of materials by Ext.P1. The other two receipts clearly show that, they were booked on '26.7.2009' and '27.7.2009' respectively i.e. much prior to purchase of goods as per Ext.P1 invoice dated 28.7.2009. By virtue of the admitted fact that the goods were purchased only on 28.7.09, no goods have been transported by the petitioner or the agent entrusted by the petitioner on any date prior to the date of purchase of the goods vide Ext.P1. 6. In the above circumstance, the discrepancies noticed by the respondent in Ext.P4 notice suspecting evasion of tax stands prima facie correct and sustainable. However, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods or the vehicle any further and the same shall be released to the petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner satisfies the requirement as shown in Ext.P4, either in the WP (C) No. 23930 of 2009 : 3 : from of 'Bank Guarantee' or by 'Cash Deposit'. However, this will be without prejudice to the right of the first respondent to pursue the adjudication proceedings based on Ext.P4, which exercise shall be finalized as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two 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