IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8649 of 2009(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.SOUTHERN ISPAT LIMITED, 19/629 (1), "SREYAS", YAKKARA SCHOOL BUS STOP, WEST YAKKARA, PALAKKAD - 678 001 REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN SRI.RAJU JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SALES TAX INSPECTOR, SALES TAX CHECK POST, KARUKUTTY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 8649 OF 2009 A ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 which is a notice issued under section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The objection stated is as follows: “ The goods under transport is M.S.Ingots sold by M/s.Southern Ispat Ltd. But the Delivery Note in Form 15 prescribed under section 46(3) of the KVAT Act is not issued by M/s.Southern Ispat Ltd. Evasion of attempt of tax is suspected, in the absence of consignor's delivery note. Moreover information gathered from the assessing authority is that, the consignor is not a prompt remitter of tax to government. In the circumstances, bonafides of the transport and attempt to evasion of tax suspected.” 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Raju Joseph and learned Government Pleader. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has sold 15.475 MT of M.S.Ingots to M/s.Jayasankar Steels Private Limited. The goods were accompanied by the sales invoice. It is also stated that the goods WPC.8649/09 : 2 : were accompanied by the delivery note of the consignee. It is pointed out that there is no requirement that there should be a delivery note. Further contention is that the Rule does not specifically stipulate that the delivery note should be by the consignor itself. I find that in Ext.P1, the officer has taken note of the bill as also the delivery note issued by the consignee. Of course, it is stated that the information gathered from the assessing authority is that the consignor is not a prompt remitter of tax. Having regard to the totality of facts, I would think that the goods should be released to the petitioner upon the petitioner giving a simple bond without sureties and adjudication is to be completed. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to release the goods detained vide Ext.P1 immediately upon the petitioner executing a simple bond without sureties for the amount. The adjudication will be completed within two months WPC.8649/09 : 3 : from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment untrammeled by anything stated in this judgment. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks