IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20579 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S MAYA APPLIANCES (P) LTD., “KARUNA” SEA PORT - AIR PORT ROAD, NEAR SNDP SCHOOL, IRIMPANAM P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH IN CHARGE MR. SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN NAIR BY ADV. MR. S.SUDHISH KUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/ 07/09 , THE COURT ON 22/07/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 20579 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 22nd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The vehicle bearing No. KL 07 BK 8576, in which some electric mixies were being transported by the petitioner from the premises near Irimpanam in Ernakulam district to Kollam was intercepted at Alapuzha by the respondent, which led to Ext.P3 notice under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act. 2. The incriminating circumstance noted in Ext.P3 is that, the bill is dated 18.7.2009; whereas the transportation was actually being carried only on 20.7.2009 at 4.20 P.M., despite the fact that, the total distance between Ernakulam and Kollam is likely to be covered within 3 -4 hours. It is also pointed out that, exorbitant discount has been provided to the consignee, to the tune of 43.98 % and it was in the said circumstances, that the respondent sought to demand security from the petitioner as specified in Ext.P3. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of the festival season ( on coming Onam), sufficient stock had to be provided and it was in furtherance to the maximum promotion of sales, that the higher rate of discount was provided to the consignee and there is absolutely no intention to evade the tax at all. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that the goods were actually loaded in the WP (C) No. 20579 of 2009 : 2 : vehicle in the evening on 18.7.2009, but the same could not be transported on that night and the next day being a Sunday, it could be transported only on Monday ie. 20th of this month and as such there is no justification for the alleged defect/doubt pointed out by the respondent. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to have the vehicle as well as the goods released, on condition that the petitioner deposits 1/3 of the amount shown in Ext.P3, simultaneously furnishing a 'Personal Bond' for the balance amount. On satisfying the condition as above, the vehicle as well as the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the right of the respondent to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which however 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 as above. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd WP (C) No. 20579 of 2009 : 3 :