IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27321 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S. M.K.STEELS, KOTTAYIL BUILDING, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, P.Y.MOHAMMED NISTHAR. BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.T.G.ABHILASH RESPONDENT: ------------------- THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.IV, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 27321 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of KVAT. The petitioner transported 9870 kg of “M.S. TMT Steel Bars”, sold to another dealer at Palakkad itself, on the strength of Ext.P2 and P3 invoices and Ext.P4 delivery note. The goods were transported from the business place of the petitioner at Kanjikode on 22.09.2009 at 9.25 pm. According to the petitioner delivery could not be effected on the same day itself since the weigh bridge at Kunnathurmedu remained closed by that time. According to the petitioner the vehicle was therefore parked on the side of a public road at Kannathurmedu, nearby to the weigh bridge. But the respondent intercepted the vehicle at 4.40 hrs on 23.09.2009 and Ext.P5 notice under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act was issued. The reason for detention noted in Ext.P5 is that the description of the goods W.P.(C)No. 27321 of 2009 2 mentioned in the invoice and delivery note is only as “MS TMT”, whereas the size of the TMT Bars were not mentioned. On verification it is revealed that different sizes with different thickness was included in the goods carried. According to the respondent value of TMT Bars having different sizes varies, and the detailed description of the goods was not mentioned in the invoice and delivery note, only with malafide intention. It is also pointed out that parking of the vehicle at 'Kunnathurmedu' on the next day morning, create suspicion. Doubting genuineness of the transport and suspecting evasion of payment of tax the goods are intercepted. The learned counsel for the respondent on the basis of the instruction submitted that the non-description of the size of the goods in the invoice and delivery note is suspicious and there is chance of utilizing the same documents for further transports. 2. The question whether there was attempt at evasion of payment of tax need be adjudicated. Having considered the rival contentions and facts and W.P.(C)No. 27321 of 2009 3 circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that, pending finalisation of the adjudication proceedings the goods can be released on the petitioner furnishing proper security for the amount demanded. 3. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to release the goods along with the vehicle detained under Ext.P5 notice, on the petitioner furnishing a Security Bond as provided under KVAT Rules, without sureties, for the amount demanded under Ext.P5. The competent authority under Section 47 (5) & (6) is hereby directed to expedite the adjudication proceedings and to pass final order, after affording an 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 shg/