IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 / 22ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28963 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD., V.P.MARIKKAR ROAD,NEAR TOLL JUNCTION, EDAPPALLY,KOCHI-682 024-REP.BY ITS ADMINISTRATION OFFICER,P.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI. BY ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.II,COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR AT IRINJALAKKUDA. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT), COMMERCIAL TAXES,SPECIAL CIRCLE, MATTANCHERRY. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, COMMERCIAL TAXES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 28963 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 14th October, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a paint Company. According to them, while the vehicle transporting paints from their Thrissur depot to Cochin depot, the same was detained by the 1st respondent under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act on the ground that the delivery note produced does not show the time of commencement of the journey and column no. 8 is not filled up and therefore the 1st respondent suspects evasion of tax. Ext. P6 notice has been issued to the petitioner directing them to furnish cash security for Rs. 1,08,203/- pending further proceedings thereto. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P6. 2. According to the petitioner, this being purely a stock transfer from one depot to another and all details are specifically mentioned in the delivery note itself, the fact that the section clerk did not mention the time of starting journey cannot give any occasion to suspect evasion of tax. The petitioner particularly mentions that the delivery note specifically stated that it is for local movement only and details of invoices are specifically mentioned. The petitioner therefore seeks release of the goods without insisting on cash security. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that the distance between Thrissur and Cochin is only about 70 kms., and therefore if the time of starting the journey is not mentioned, there is every likelihood of the same delivery note being used for more than one consignment. Therefore, the goods cannot be released without giving cash security, is his contention. 4. In answer, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that paints being non-notified goods, delivery note is not compulsory at all and invoice alone is sufficient and the goods are accompanied by W.P.C. No. 28963/2009. -: 2 :- invoices. 5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 6. First of all, I note that the allegation in Ext. P6 notice that column no. 8 of the delivery note is not filled up, is not correct. In fact, a seal is stamped there stating that the consignment is for local movement only. Apart from that, I find considerable merit in the contention of the petitioner insofar as the delivery note itself contains the invoice numbers and the goods are accompanied by invoices also. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The competent authority shall complete the proceedings pursuant to Ext. P6 as expeditiously as possible. Pending finalisation of proceedings , the goods shall be released to the petitioner on the petitioner furnishing a bond without sureties for the amount covered by Ext. P6. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.