IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23771 of 2010(V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- T.RAMESH KUMAR, S/O.THANGAMUTHU GOUNDER, # 3, IST FLOOR, IST MAIN KPN EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 500 002. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR - 678 624. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST,WALAYAR.- 678 624. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR, PIN - 678 624. 4. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 5. M/S.HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD, C/O.M/S.SITARAM TRADING COMPANY, VI-245-A, KUNNATHUPEEDIKA, KOTAKAD, KUTTUR, TRISSUR - 680 013. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHAMSUDDIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 23771 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is stated as the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA-01-C-1065 approached this Court because of the detention of the vehicle and goods made by Ext.P8 notice issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent specified therein. Case of the petitioner is that the materials were sought to be transported at the instance of the concerned parties and that the same was being taken to the premises of the consignee (fifth respondent), when it was intercepted issuing Ext.P8 notice. It is the case of the petitioner that, in spite of service of notice, no body has turned up from the part of the consignor or consignee and because of the detention of the vehicle, the petitioner who is the owner of the vehicle is put to much loss and hardship. It is in the said circumstances, the petitioner has filed Ext.P10 application dated 21.7.2010 before the concerned respondent seeking for immediate intervention and to cause the vehicle to be released after unloading the materials at the place to be pointed out by the concerned respondent, at the cost of the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits with reference to the instructions that the second prayer in the writ petition to release the goods is not liable to be entertained, unless the demand WPC No.23771/2010 2 made in Ext.P8 is satisfied, in view of the insinuating circumstances. But since the petitioner has confined the relief as now put forth by the learned counsel, to have the vehicle alone released after unloading the materials as requested in Ext.P10 representation, this Court finds that there is no point in detaining the vehicle any further; particularly when there is no case for the respondents that any notice under Section 69 has been issued as on date. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to unload the goods contained in the vehicle at the place to be pointed out by the departmental authorities, at the cost of the petitioner and the vehicle shall be released immediately thereafter. Necessary arrangement shall be made by the respondents in this regard, within 'two days' from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. However, this will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondents to proceed against the goods/the consignee/the consignor, in accordance with law under the relevant provisions of law. The writ petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON (JUDGE) vps WPC No.23771/2010 3 WPC No.23771/2010 4