IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28052 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. POKKALATH TRADERS, CC 42/662, THAMMANAM ROAD, PIPELINE JUNCTION, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-25, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR K. MURALEEDHARAN. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.28052 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of consignment of Plywood brought from Bangalore on the strength of Ext.P2 invoice. Petitioner is a registered dealer and the inter-state purchase was effected on payment of Central Sales Tax at the rate of 2%. The reasons for detention of goods mentioned in Ext.P4 notice issued u/s 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act is that, there is discrepancy in the date of the invoice noted on the delivery note which accompanied the transport. Further it is alleged that the date and time of commencement of journey was not noted on the delivery note and the vehicle number was seen corrected. Further it is alleged that the delivery note was seen written at different times using different carbon papers. According to the petitioner it was only due to a bonafide omission on the part of the consignor at Bangalore that the time and date of journey was omitted to be noted. The correction with respect to the vehicle number was effected only because the original vehicle, in which the transport was effected broke down enroute and it was re-transported in another vehicle. It is contended that the petitioner is a registered dealer and he is regularly paying tax. It is submitted that the transport in W.P.(C).28052/09-B 2 question was bonafide and genuine and there was no attempt at evasion of payment of any tax. 2. Having considered contentions of the petitioner and on hearing the learned Government Pleader for the respondent, I am of the opinion that the reasons pointed out for detention are mainly defects pertaining to the documents accompanied the transport. However, the question whether there was any attempt at evasion of payment of tax is a matter to be decided on finalisation of adjudication. But continued detention of goods till such time is not warranted and the petitioner can be permitted to release the goods on furnishing security, especially in view of the proviso to Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act. 3. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to release the goods along with the vehicle detained under Ext.P4 on the petitioner furnishing Security Bond in the form prescribed under the KVAT Rules, without sureties, for the amount demanded under Ext.P4. The competent authority under Section 47 is directed to expedite the adjudication proceedings and to pass orders after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of release of the goods. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb