IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24726 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- POLY GLASS ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO.(P) LTD,89-90,INDUSTRIAL AREA,PHASE-I,PANCHKULA, HARYANA,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-OPERATIONS, SURESH KUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,SQUAD NO.V, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-15. 2. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INT.),DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-15. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.24726 of 2010-M ---------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a trader in Haryana, who imported some goods from China to Kochi, from where it was being taken to Haryna in vehicle bearing No.KL 08 AH 5156, when the same was intercepted on the way on 22.7.2010 by the concerned respondent, issuing Ext.P2 under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even though the factual position has been sought to be explained by filing Ext.P3 objection, the same has not been properly considered by the concerned respondent and the detention still continues, which made the petitioner to approach this Court. 3. The learned Government Pleader, with reference to the materials on record submits that, this is a clear instance of evasion of tax, which made the respondents to demand security deposit vide Ext.P2. The insinuating circumstances noted in Ext.P2 are also W.P(C) No.24726 of 2010-M 2 specifically referred to by the learned Government Pleader. However, this Court finds that this a matter which requires to be adjudicated by the concerned authority, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is ready and willing to have the goods unloaded at the place pointed out by the respondents, so as to have the vehicle released, simultaneously pointing out that the petitioner shall meet the necessary expenses in this regard. 5. In the above circumstances, there will be a direction to cause the materials to be off-loaded at the proper place to be pointed out by the respondents, forthwith, at any rate within two days from the receipt of a copy of this judgment and the vehicle shall be released accordingly. This will be without prejudice to the right 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 one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE W.P(C) No.24726 of 2010-M 3 ab