IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36445 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. ERNAKULAM TRADING COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, T.K. MOHAMMED ASHARAF, 40/4529, MUSLIM STREET, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN SRI. SHEHEERA P.Y RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, GOPALAPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 36445 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Writ petition is field aggrieved by detention of transport effected, on issuing Ext.P5 notice under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). The reason for detention mentioned in Ext.P5 is that the date furnished in the Delivery Note which accompanied the transport, is 12.11.2009, whereas the transport was effected on 12.12.2009. Copy of the Delivery Note which accompanied the transport is produced as Ext.P3. It seems that the suspicion is raised on the basis that there is a correction effected while noting the date in the Delivery Note. Contention of the petitioner is that inspite of that minor correction the date is clearly legible as, “12.12.09”. Onward transport is detained seeking to furnish security deposit to the tune of Rs.26,834/-. W.P.(C)No. 36445 of 2009 -2- 2. Without adjudication on the merits regarding the reason for detention, I am of the opinion that the allegation contained in Ext.P5 is only in the nature of a discrepancy with respect to the document accompanying the transport. The petitioner being a registered dealer, I am of the opinion that pending finalisation of the adjudication, the goods can be released on its furnishing Security Bond, as provided under proviso to Section 47 (2). 3. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to release the goods detained under Ext.P5 notice along with the vehicle, on the petitioner furnishing Security Bond in the form provided under the KVAT Rules, without sureties, for the value of amounts demanded under Ext.P5. 4. The competent authority under Section 47 (5) & (6) of the KVAT Act is directed to finalise the adjudication proceedings and to pass final order, after affording opportunity to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any W.P.(C)No. 36445 of 2009 -3- rate within a period of one month from the date of release of the goods. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/