IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15210 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.MOHAMED RAFI, RAFEEQ TIMBERS, 5TH MILE, 1/510,POLPULLY PO,DHARMA NAGAR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR. S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) MR. K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.1V, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SECOND CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 15210 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 20th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the sustainability of the Ext.P3 notice issued under Section 47 (2) of the KVAT Act. The goods being transported by the petitioner in the vehicle bearing No. KL 4F 9570 were intercepted by the first respondent on 17.05.2010 suspecting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit as specified therein. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the reasons shown in Ext.P3 are not at all correct or sustainable to continue the detention and despite filing Ext.P4 reply, the vehicle and the goods has not been released so far. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking for appropriate relief. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that action pursued by the respondents is perfectly in conformity with the relevant provisions of law. More so, when the defects noted with reference to relevant provisions of law stand rather conceded as per the contents of 'paragraph v' of Ext.P4 explanation wherein it is stated that the petitioner was not aware of the latest amendments of the relevant Rules. That apart, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the goods transported were actually W.P. (C) No. 15210 of 2010 : 2 : found as 'timber', as discernible from the contents of the incriminating circumstances noted in Ext.P3; whereas the same is contended as teak poles purchased from the Forest Department of Government of Kerala. Yet another important aspect to be noted is that Ext.P1 invoice is dated '27.03.2010' whereas the date of invoice in Ext.P2 delivery note is 16.05.10. This by itself shows that the goods that were being transported by the petitioner were not the materials actually purchased from the forest department, submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court finds considerable force in the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader. In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition does not call for any interference; as it requires proper adjudication by the appropriate authority to arrive at the correct conclusion. However, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods any further and that the same can be released to the petitioner, on condition that, the petitioner satisfies the demand, either in cash or by furnishing 'bank guarantee' (for the amount demanded as security deposit in Ext.P3); on which event, the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the rights and interests of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if any and the same shall be finalized in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is also W.P. (C) No. 15210 of 2010 : 3 : made clear that before release of the goods as above, the competent authority shall verify and record the nature of the goods with proper notice to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd