IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14608 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.CEE PEE GRANITS PVT. LTD., N.H.17,VELLIMUKKU P.O.,MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, C.P.YOONIS SALEEM. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENTS: ------------- INTELLIGENCE INSPECTGOR, SQUAD NO.1 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE) COMMERCIAL TAXES,KOZHIKODE-6. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 14608 OF 2008 L ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6. He seeks a direction for release of the goods covered by Ext.P2 invoice and detained by Ext.P4 notice. The petitioner has obtained Ext.P1 registration certificate under the KVAT Act. The case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner is dealing in granite and marble. He purchased 3660 sq.ft. of polished granite tiles from Satya Sai Granites, Andra Pradesh, by Ext.P2 invoice and he paid advance tax for the goods as per Ext.P3. On the way, the goods came to be detained and he was issued Ext.P4 notice under section 47(2) of the KVAT Act demanding Rs.1,53,595/- for release of the goods. The above demand is made estimating the value of the excess quantity of goods at Rs.2,44,250/-. This is on the basis that it was found on inspection that the vehicle contained 8545 sq.ft. of tiles against 3660 sq.ft. of tiles covered by documents WPC.14608/08 : 2 : and there is an excess quantity of 4885 sq.ft. The petitioner denied the ownership of the excess quantity of tiles. By Ext.P5 letter, he requested the release of goods belonging to him covered by documents. However, the respondent did not release the goods and insisted for compliance of the demands made under Ext.P4 notice. According to the petitioner, the driver had not voluntarily given any statement and he was asked to sign on certain papers. The excess quantity of goods are brought by the owner of the vehicle and it is evident from Exts.P7 and P8. The petitioner had obtained Exts.P7 and P8 from the driver of the vehicle after filing the writ petition. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is the owner of 3660 sq.ft. of tiles and that it is covered by Ext.P2 invoice. He has also relied on Exts.P7 and P8 to support his contention that the excess quantity does not belong to him and on the WPC.14608/08 : 3 : contrary, belongs to the owner of the vehicle. But, these documents were not produced along with Ext.P5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the demand made in Ext.P6 is in respect of additional quantity. This is on the basis of the statement given by the driver of the vehicle that the entire load is meant for the petitioner. At the same time, I find that the claim of the petitioner was for release of only 3660 sq.ft. which is covered by Ext.P2 invoice. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that he is not having any right over the excess quantity and the only claim is in respect of the quantity covered by Ext.P2 invoice. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not concerned about the excess quantity at all and he has no objection in the proceedings going on in accordance with law in regard to the said quantity. Therefore, I feel that the request in Ext.P5 should be reconsidered in accordance with law. For that purpose alone, I quash Ext.P6. I make it clear that I do not interfere with the reasoning for demanding the WPC.14608/08 : 4 : security for the excess quantity. The demand for security is also not interfered with. Ext.P6 is quashed only for the limited purpose of enabling the respondent to reconsider the request for release of the tiles covered by Ext.P2. The learned Government Pleader points out that accepting the case of the petitioner, there would be a difficulty in identifying the tiles also. That is also a matter for the decision by the respondent. Accordingly, as aforesaid, Ext.P6 is quashed only in the manner indicated above. There will be a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P5 request and take a decision having regard to the facts of the goods detained, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks