IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20569 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. N.SELVARAJ, AMARAVATHI NAGAR, MANAKADAVU P.O., DHARAPURAM TALUK, ERODE DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. 2. P.KRISHNAMOORTHY, P.W.D.CONTRACTOR, MADHAVI MANDIRAM, THENARI P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR. N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR MR. T.G.ABHILASH RESPONDENT: --------------- INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, INTELLIGENCE SQUAD NO.VIII, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-I. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 20569 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 02nd day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners are aggrieved of detention of the excavator by the respondent, issuing Ext.P5 notice under Section 47 (2) of KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding the security deposit to the extent as specified therein. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the concerned excavator was originally purchased by one Mr. C.N. Sudhakar, as borne by Ext.P1 invoice dated 31.3.2002, who sold the same to the first petitioner as per Ext.P2 sale deed dated 22.7.2004. The second petitioner entered into an agreement with the first petitioner as borne by Ext.P4 on 29.5.2010, for taking the excavator on lease, for completing certain works awarded to the second petitioner as borne by Ext. P3. It is stated that, the works were completed and that the excavator was being taken back to the premises of the first petitioner in the vehicle bearing No. TN 72 X 8712, when it was intercepted by the respondent, issuing Ext. P5 notice dated 27.6.2010, which hence is under challenge. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in spite of furnishing the relevant records to reveal the actual facts and figures, the respondent has not paid any heed to the same and the detention is still continued, which is stated as arbitrary and illegal. W.P. (C) No. 20569 of 2010 : 2 : 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that, there was no document in support of the transportation and in the said circumstances, there is every reason for the respondent to doubt the evasion of tax, more so when there is no material to substantiate the position as to the bringing of excavator from Erode and further that there is no entry made by any of the check post authorities situated in between. 4. Taking note of the rival submissions, this Court finds that, this is matter which requires to be adjudicated by the concerned authority, so as to ascertain the actual facts and figures. However, considering the hardships being caused to the petitioner and the probable loss to be resulted, if the version of the petitioner to be true, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the respondent to finalize the adjudication proceedings forthwith, at any rate within one week, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd