IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21583 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S. P.H. MOHAMED KUNJU & BROTHER, DEALERS IN IRON AND STEEL, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COHIN -35 REPRESENTED BY THE PAPRTNER P.H. MOHAMED KUNJU. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO. I, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SURESHKUMAR, ISWARYA BHAVANAM KAVANADU, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 21583 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 30th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is that, the vehicle bearing No. KL 7A X 6816 belonging to him was transporting the goods covered by Exts. P1 and P2 invoices to the consignee (second respondent), as per the terms of the contract, to have it delivered at the latter's door, was intercepted by the first respondent on 28.7.2009, leading to issuance of Ext.P4 notice under Section 47 (2) of KVAT Act, demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the very issuance of Ext.P4 itself is wrong and misconceived, in so far as all the requisite documents contemplated under Section 46 (3) of the Act very much accompanied the goods, and no dispute in this regard has been raised in Ext.P4. The learned counsel further submits that sale of the goods was to an unregistered dealer and hence the goods were being transported with “form 8B” invoice as stipulated under the relevant provisions of law, along with the delivery notes, the goods being a notified commodity. The only incriminating circumstance pointed out in Ext.P4 is that, the consignee's identity was suspected by the concerned officer to be a 'work contractor', since the consignment was of 'trade quantity' and that the driver of the vehicle had deposed that the goods were to be delivered at WP (C) No. 21583 of 2009 : 2 : a boat building yard and hence that the consignee (second respondent) was suspected to be a work contractor. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that by virtue very of the nature of transaction and the actual intention revealed through the driver of the vehicle, there was nothing wrong on the part of the first respondent to have doubted the identity of the consignee, leading to issuance of Ext.P4 and that the only attempt was to safe guard the interest of revenue. 3. However, it is very much clear that, as per the relevant provisions of law, in the case of sale to any unregistered dealer, the same could be effected only on the basis of 'form 8 B' invoices and that the goods were actually supported by delivery note as well. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, Ext.P3 delivery note actually pertains to Ext.P1 invoice and that the delivery note in respect of Ext.P2 invoice though handed over to the officers concerned, it has not been taken note of in Ext.P4, particularly against the entry in column 9. 5. After considering the facts and circumstances, there will be a direction to the first respondent to release the vehicle as well as the goods to the petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner executes a 'Personal Bond' to the satisfaction of the officer concerned besides a similar bond to be executed by the second respondent, as WP (C) No. 21583 of 2009 : 3 : agreed and undertaken to be procured by the petitioner. It is also made clear that, the adjudication proceedings, if any, pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be finalized in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The decision to be passed by the first respondent pursuant to the adjudication proceedings shall be made on the basis of relevant provisions of law, untrammelled by any of the observations made by this Court in the present Writ Petition, particularly since this Court has not chosen to render any finding on the basis of merits involved. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd