IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28477 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SAJI.P.J., PROPRIETOR, PONNORE MARKETING, PERINGAVU, THIRUVAMBADY P.O., SHORNUR ROAD, TRICHUR-22. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK-POST, ARYANKAVU, KOLLAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. W.P.C.NO.28477 of 2010 Dated this the 15th day of September 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Exts.P5 to P7 notices issued under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Taxes Act (KVAT Act) and also seeking direction for release of the goods detained under the said notices. According to the petitioner, the goods under transport was LLDPE (Low Density Poly Ethylene) granules which is imported, vide Ext.P2 commercial invoice. Import was made by a firm M/s.Arun Polymers. According to the petitioner, on the basis of a High Sea Sale Contract (Ext.P3), goods were purchased by the petitioner. Consignments were intercepted when the goods were transported from Tuticorin port to the place of business of the petitioner at Thiruvambady. On a perusal of Exts.P5 to P7 notices, the reason for detention mentioned is that no invoices or delivery notes were accompanied along with the transport, which are documents required under Section 46(3) of the KVAT Act. W.P.C.No.28477/10 2 2. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 Bill of Entry was accompanying with the transport and the same will reveal that the materials are imported goods. Further it is contended that, he has produced Ext.P3, High Sea Sale Contract and Ext.P8 High Sea Sale Invoice, after issuance of Ext.P5 to P7 notices. Inspite of being convinced that the transaction does not attract liability for payment of tax, the 1st respondent is not releasing the goods, is the grievance of the petitioner. 3. The question as to whether there was any attempt of evasion of payment of tax with respect to the transport, is a matter which need be decided on finalising the enquiry as contemplated under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act. This Court cannot, at this stage, adjudicate upon the controversial issues pertaining to the transport. I am of the opinion that the goods need not be detained till finalisation of the enquiry and the same can be released to the petitioner on furnishing proper security. 4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to release the goods along with the vehicle which are detained under Exts.P5 to P7 W.P.C.No.28477/10 3 notices on the petitioner furnishing Bank Guarantee for the amount of security deposit demanded under those notices. 5. The competent Enquiry Officer shall finalise the enquiry, after affording an opportunity of hearing the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of release of the goods. (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.28477/10 4 W.P.C.No.28477/10 5 W.P.C.No.28477/10 6