IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27108 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SRI.UDAYARAJ K., PROPRIETOR, SASTHA ENTERPRISES, XIV/248, KURUDIKKAD, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN SMT.G.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678001. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27108 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of goods transported interstate from Chennai. The petitioner purchased “False Ceiling Tiles” from a dealer at Chennai and transported the same to his place of business at Kanjikode, Palakkad. The transport was intercepted by the 1st respondent on issuing Ext.P2 notice for the reason that the invoice which accompanied the transport was neither the original nor the transport copy, but it was only a fax copy. Since the transport was not accompanied by documents as prescribed under Section 46 (3) of the KVAT Act, genuineness of the transport as well as attempt at evasion of payment of tax was suspected. By Ext.P2 the petitioner was requested to furnish security to the tune of Rs.51,990/- for release of the goods. W.P.(C).27108/2010 -2- 2. According to the petitioner, it was only due to an inadvertent mistake on the part of the consignor that a copy of the invoice was sent along with the goods, instead of its original. It is submitted that original of the invoice was produced before the 1st respondent. But he was not prepared to release the goods. 3. Learned Government Pleader on the basis of instructions denied that the original has been produced before the 1st respondent at any subsequent point of time. It is also disputed that even the copy of tax invoice produced as Ext.P3 herein is not a copy of the original, but it is only the copy of a printout. Hence it is contended that the goods can be released only on deposit of the amount of security demanded. 4. The questions whether there was any attempt at evasion of payment of tax and as to whether any penalty is liable to be imposed are all matters which need be considered on completion of the adjudication by the competent authority, under Section 47 of the Act. At this W.P.(C).27108/2010 -3- stage I am concerned only with release of goods and vehicle. Having considered rival contentions I am of the opinion that the vehicle as well as goods need not be detained till finalisation of the adjudication, and the same can be released on the petitioner furnishing proper security in lieu of payment of the security amount. 5. Writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release goods detained under Ext.P2 along with the vehicle on the petitioner furnishing Bank Guarantee for the amount of security demanded. The competent authority is directed to expedite the adjudication and to finalise the same at the earliest, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb