IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6694 of 2010(J) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M/S.CRESCENT CRUMBS (P) LTD. IV/1/117C, PENGATTUSSERY, ERUMATHALA PO ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.V.H.NOORSALAM. BY ADVS.MR.E.P.GOVINDAN SMT.G.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST ARYANKAVU, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT) SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES MATTANCHERRY AT ALUVA. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.6694 of 2010-J ---------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the detention of the goods transported in the vehicle bearing No.TN 28/K-0297 which was intercepted on 26.2.2010 by issuing Ext.P2 notice under Section 47(2) of The KVAT Act. The incriminating circumstance noted in Ext.P2, inter alia, is that Ext.P4 delivery note does not contain the 'signature', though it bears the seal; thus doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the goods have suffered the necessary taxes and that no further liability could not be mulcted upon the shoulders of the petitioner. It is stated that all the necessary documents in this regard will be produced before the adjudicating authority in due course. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that the defect with respect to Ext.P4 Delivery Note is very much obvious and hence that the second respondent is very much W.P(C) No.6694 of 2010-J 2 justified in issuing Ext.P2. However, taking note of the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods any further and the same can be released to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner executes a 'simple bond' in respect of the amount shown as the security deposit in Ext.P2. On satisfying the said requirement, the vehicle as well as the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if any, which shall be finalised in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab