IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22242 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SUDHIRKUMAR PRABHUDAS PATEL, PROPRIETOR, SONA SANITRADE, 41/1558 & 1559 VEEKSHANAM ROAD,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.III, COMMERCIALTAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRPESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 22242 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 5th August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The goods brought from outside the State through Railways and loaded in the vehicle bearing No. KL.07/BD.7830 for effecting delivery to the consignee was intercepted by the first respondent on 30.07.2009 leading to Ext. P2 notice issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, demanding security to the tune of Rs.1,22,515/- as specified therein. 2. Obviously, the incriminating circumstances noted in Ext.P2 are such that the 'delivery note' which accompanied the goods showed the date as '27.07.2009'; whereas it actually ought to have been 30.07.2009. That apart, the time of commencement of journey was also not shown in the delivery note. Non compliance with the provision under Section 46 (3) (e) is also referred to, in so far the position has not been reported to the concerned Commercial Tax Officer, who is having jurisdiction over the area, on arrival of the goods. W.P.(C) No. 22242 OF 2009 2 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the defects noted in Ext. P2 cannot be of serious consequences and that it is only because of some mistake committed by the staff of the transporter. The learned Counsel further submits that since the goods were being brought out from outside the State, the transaction did not involve any 'delivery note' to be accompanied. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that in Ext.P6 delivery note , which admittedly was accompanying the goods, did not mention even the number of the vehicle, whereas in the delivery note stated as produced by the petitioner , the number of the vehicle was incorporated manually in 'ink', which is also stated as an incriminating circumstance to have the goods detained. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the vehicle as well as the goods can be released to the petitioner, on condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the amount shown in Ext.P2 and also on furnishing a 'personal bond' for the balance amount. On satisfying the requirements as above, the vehicle as well as the goods shall be released to the W.P.(C) No. 22242 OF 2009 3 petitioner forthwith. It is made clear that this will be without prejudice to the right of the departmental authorities to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which exercise shall be pursued and finalised as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk