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. 14933 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- EVM AUTOMOBILES(P)LTD II/4-C ,N.H.BYE-PASS, KANNADIKADU, MARADU, PIN 682 304, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI.SABU JOHNY. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR SQUAD NO.V, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KASARAGOD. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES KASARAGOD. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001. 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. 14933 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 18th May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging sustainability of Ext. P7 notice issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, whereby the goods brought by the petitioner have been detained by the concerned respondent, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the omissions/defects noted in Ext. P7 are trivial, in so far as the goods were transported on the strength of Ext. P5 invoice issued by the dealer and that there is no reason to doubt evasion of tax. It is also specifically contended that the reference made in Ext.P7 that element of 'works contract' was suspected, is absolutely devoid of any merit or bonafides and hence the petitioner is entitled to get the goods released forthwith. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the W.P.(C) No. 14933 OF 2010 2 respondents, with reference to the materials on record, submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived and that if the petitioner is a work contractor, he has to get registration, which is not the position in the instant case. It is also brought to the notice of this Court, with reference to the contents of Ext. P5 invoice, (which is sought to be relied on by the petitioner as well, to sustain transportation) that, towards bottom of the invoice, a sum of Rs. 35,748.30/- is shown as “Erection Charges @ 5%”. The learned Government Pleader submits that this by itself shows that the transportation is part fulfillment of a' works contract'. This being the position, the action pursued by the respondents in detaining the goods as per Ext. P7 is not assailable under any circumstances, submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court finds considerable force in the said submission. This matter requires to be adjudicated, so as to arrive at the final conclusion as to the actual facts and figures. However, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods any further and that the same can be released to the W.P.(C) No. 14933 OF 2010 3 petitioner, on condition that the petitioner satisfies the demand either in cash or by furnishing 'bank guarantee' (for the amount demanded as security deposit in Ext. P7); on which event, the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the rights and interests of the respondents to pursue adjudication proceedings, if any and the same shall be finalised in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, 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. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk