IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7411 of 2009(V) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SISTEMA SHYAM TELESERVICES LTD., 33/316-B, AMBEDKAR ROAD, VENNALA, KOCHI REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, INTELLIGENCE OFFICE SQUAD NO.II, SQUAD NO.3, PATHANAMTHITTA, PERUNNA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 7411 OF 2009 V -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P3 and seeks a mandamus to release the goods. Ext.P3 is a Notice issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act. What is stated therein is as follows: “The vehicle was intercepted at Chenganachery while plying to Kottyam Ernakulam. As per the document corresponded with the transport, the goods is seen despatched from Ernakulam to Kollam.” Petitioner submitted Ext.P4. In Ext.P4 it is stated that the Company is engaged in providing CDMA based mobile telephone services and they are installing BTS and Accessories at various places and they transported one set of BTS from their warehouse at Aluva to the following places:- Destination No. of Boxes Pathanapuram, Kollam Dist. 6 Boxes WPC.7411/09 V 2 The goods were unloaded at the following destinations: But, the destinations are not seen mentioned. Thereafter, it is stated that the vehicle was bound for Pathanapuram. But, the driver took a wrong route and he went to Chenganassery instgead of Pathanapuram and, therefore, he had to come back to Thiruvalla and enter the Pathanapuram route. Ext.P4(3) is the Statement of the driver. By an interim order, this Court directed the objection of the petitioner to be considered. Ext.P5 resulted. Petitioner has amended the Writ Petition and challenged Ext.P5. Also, the petitioner has added one ground that Ext.P5 notice does not make out any material for detention and the reasons stated are flimsy and the Officer has pre-determined the issue of detaining the goods. 2. I notice that various objections are taken. It is, inter alia, stated that the destination shown in the documents as Pathanapuram at Kollam is a place some what near Kundara where the driver already delivered the goods on 24.2.2009 and the distance between the destination and the place of WPC.7411/09 V 3 interception is about 70 Kms. and the difference in the dates of interception and documents varies. It is also found the contention that the consignment was stock transfer using delivery note, cannot be accepted, since such documents are statutory forms which should be filled up with care. The objections were directed to be considered with a view to find out whether it is a case where the goods could be released on executing Bond. 3. At this stage, it is not proper for me to review, sitting as an Appellate Authority or as if it is sitting over adjudication. The adjudication is yet to be completed. Shri A. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, no doubt, referred to Ext.P6 and also contended that the petitioner has given sufficient explanation for answering all the defects. Having regard to the facts present, I do not think that this is an appropriate case where I should direct release of the goods on executing Bond. The adjudication will be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, untrammelled by anything stated in this WPC.7411/09 V 4 Judgment. Subject to the same, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge