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. 28279 of 2010(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M/S.HSIL LTD., IST FLOOR, HEAVENLY PLAZA, COLONY STOP, CIVIL STATION ROAD, PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS AREA SALES MANAGER, UNNIKRISHNAN. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 3RD CIRCLE, KAKKANAD. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KASARAGOD. R1 & R2 BY 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: Kss C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 28279 OF 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of wooden racks transported from Mangalore to Cochin, and by issuance of Ext.P3 notice by the second respondent under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. It is submitted that the goods under transport are wooden display boards (display stands), which were taken from Cochin to Mangalore in connection with an Architects' Meet which was held there on 20.08.2010. The stands were intended for displaying sanitary items dealt with by the petitioner. It is contended that the goods were transported on the strength of declaration in Form No. 27 B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and it was transported after declaring the goods at the boarder check post at Manjeswar. The goods were detained while taking back, after the exhibition, at Neeleshwar. 2. On a perusal of Ext.P3, it is evident that the reason for detention is that the Form No. 27 B used was not valid and the materials displayed were not available, but only the display stands were transported. Further it is noticed that the price displayed on one of such stands is Rs.23,400/-. But the materials were not seen declared at any of the entry check posts. 2 WP(C) No. 28279/2010 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that only the wooden display stands alone were transported and the sanitary wares for display were taken from their dealers at Mangalore. It is further contended that Form No. 27 B declaration which accompanied the transport was also supported by letter issued by the petitioner mentioning that the goods were carried only for the purpose of display of items at the Meet conducted at Mangalore. According to the petitioner, genuineness of transport can be evaluated from the documents which bears endorsements made by the boarder check posts. 4. Through Ext.P3, security deposit to the tune of Rs.88,630/- was demanded. According to the petitioner, the wooden display stands transported are not having any value worth that mentioned in Ext.P4. Hence the petitioner is seeking direction to expedite the enquiry and to finalise the matter. He is also seeking direction for release of the vehicle, pending finalisation of the enquiry, since there is no proceedings is initiated against the vehicle. 5. Learned Government Pleader, on the basis of instruction, submitted that apart from the proceedings initiated under Section 47 (2), no steps has been taken against vehicle in question. Therefore I am of the opinion that the vehicle can be released to the petitioner making arrangements for unloading the display stands. The competent authority 3 WP(C) No. 28279/2010 can be directed to finalise the proceedings after release of the vehicle on completing enquiry as contemplated under the statute. 6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to permit release of the vehicle, on the petitioner making arrangements for unloading and stocking of the materials carried therein. The vehicle shall be released without any further delay as and when approach is made by the petitioner. 7. The competent enquiry officer is directed to conduct the enquiry and to finalise it, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc