IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3474 of 2008(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.R.GOPI, SABITHA SUPARI TRADERS, HILL PRODUCE DEALER, CHALISSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II, THALASSERY-670 701. 2. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KANNUR. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 4. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI MANOJ CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 3474 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 13, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to be a registered dealer under the KVAT Act and the CST Act. Exts.P1 and P2 are the certificates of registration. 2. This writ petition has been filed following the detention of two lorry loads of betel nuts. Exts.P3 and P4 are the detention orders. It is stated by the petitioner that following the detention by Exts.P3 and P4, Exts.P5 and P6 notices have been issued under sec.69 proposing penalty. It is also stated that Ext.P7 notice has been issued under sec.9 of the CST Act. 3. The irregularities noticed in Exts.P3 and P4 are that the documents which accompanied the transport such as invoice and delivery note were issued by the dealer. It is stated that advance tax due was not paid, incorrect and false endorsement for payment WP(C) 3474/08 Page numbers of advance tax were affixed in the delivery note by the dealer himself and had affixed the seal and signature of the assessing authority with the intention of evading tax due to the State exchequer. It is also stated that further enquiries revealed that the officers whose signature was affixed in Exts.P3 and P4 had not made any endorsement regarding payment of tax on the delivery note. Exts.P5 and P6 also contains allegations of such large scale evasion of duty including fabrication of documents. Ext.P7 indicates that the petitioner had transported 22 loads of betel nuts following the same method and it is on that basis penalty is proposed. 4. Petitioner submits that these allegations are incorrect and that he is willing to remit the amount demanded under Exts.P3, P4, P5 and P6 and that the goods detained should be released. According to him the goods were illegally detained and that the respondents have been putting pressure on the petitioner to remit the fine amount indicated in Ext.P7 as well. 5. The respondents have filed a statement producing several documents justifying the action that they have taken. It is stated WP(C) 3474/08 Page numbers that this is a clear case of large scale evasion of tax on the strength of documents which were all fabricated by the petitioner. 6. Going by the statement that is filed, I notice that on enquiry, the respondents have come to understand that the petitioner has transported 102 loads of arecanut valued at Rs.8.16 crores on the strength of bogus endorsement of payment of advance tax and according to them in view of all these, they have issued Ext.R1(h) notice proposing seizure of the goods under sec.49 (3) of the KVAT Act. 7. The documents produced along with the statement discloses a disturbing picture and indicates large scale clandestine transport of goods on the strength of fabricated documents. Now that the goods have been detained and proceedings have been initiated, the allegations including those raised by the respondents in Exts.P3 and P4 and also those contained in the statement filed are matters requiring enquiry. At this stage I do not think that there is any justification for this court to direct release of the goods, particularly for the reason that Ext.R1(h) notice has been issued by the respondents for confiscation of the goods under sec.49(3) of the WP(C) 3474/08 Page numbers KVAT Act. Therefore, I do not think that pending adjudication of the correctness of the allegations, the writ petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for. Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-