IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22843 of 2009(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SWINDER SINGH SATARA & CO. LTD., MERCY ESTATE, 2ND FLOOR, RAVIPURAM, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-15, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON SHRI.DINESH PAI. BY ADV. MR.DEEPU THANKAN SMT.G.RANJITA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, BANGARA, MANJESHWAR. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KVAT CIRCLE IV, COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICE, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 12th August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The goods imported by the petitioner from China through Mumbai Port were being transported in to Kerala in the vehicle bearing No.MH-11AL-339, when it was intercepted by the first respondent on 01.08.2009 issuing Ext. P5 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act , doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit, as specified therein. The case of the petitioner is that the incriminating circumstances noted in Ext. P5 cannot lead to any inference as to the evasion of tax, particularly since no Delivery Note in Form No.15 is contemplated, since it is not a transport within the State; and that the original of the Invoice, instead of placing at the hands of the transporter, the consignor, by mistake, had sent it directly to the petitioner, entrusting a photocopy of the same to accompany the goods, which led to issuance of Ext. P5. The learned Counsel for the W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2009 2 petitioner also submits that the actual position though was brought to the notice of the first respondent, by filing Ext. P6 reply in response to Ext. P5, the said respondent was not prepared to accept the documents, which compelled the petitioner to approach this Court. 2. The learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents submits that the mistake/lapse on the part of the petitioner stands rather admitted, in so far as the petitioner does not have a case that the original of the Invoice was accompanying the goods carried in the vehicle. It is also brought to the notice of this Court, referring to the contents of Ext. P6, that the petitioner has only expressed their willingness to produce the original of the Invoice before the first respondent and that as per the instructions, the petitioner is yet to produce the same. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to produce the original of the invoice along with the bill of entry, before the first respondent and on such an event, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be W.P.(C) No.22843 OF 2009 3 passed by the first respondent, for releasing the goods as well as the vehicle to the petitioner within 24 hours of production of the original of the records. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk