IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14639 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BINOD E.MOHANAN, ILLIKKADU HOUSE, EDAPPALLY.P.O, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA.N.S. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, THE COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 14639 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 18th May , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of detention of goods brought by him, which was detained by the first respondent issuing Ext.P2 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, suspecting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit, as specified therein . The petitioner brought the materials (electrical goods) for his own use and the transport was accompanied with requisite documents . It is also stated that the construction of the building belonging to the petitioner was started on the basis of the building permit issued by the Kalamassery Municipality, which is stated as almost over and the buidling has been numbered and it was accordingly, the petitioner chose to procure necessary electrical goods from Delhi for a lesser rate, when they happened to be intercepted by the first respondent . 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the endorsement given in Ext. P1 invoice that the goods were purchased for personal use and not for sale, is not liable to be accepted in view of the fact that the Certificate of Ownership in Form No.16 produced before the first respondent does W.P.(C) No. 14639 OF 2010 2 not contain particulars of the ownership nor does it bear any date or other relevant aspects as specified therein. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Form was filled by the consignor, from whom the materials were purchased and that the petitioner has explained the position by filing Ext. P4 objection before the first respondent and the limited prayer now pressed before this Court is to have it considered, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the sides. 4. In the facts and circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4 filed by the petitioner and finalise the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk