IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30540 of 2008(I) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M/S.JAI HIND TRADERS, 29/621, K.JAIN TOWER, VYTTILA, KOCHI - 19, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENT: --------------------- INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRICHUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 30540 OF 2008 I -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P10 and seeks a direction to the respondent to release the goods detained as per Ext.P10 to the petitioner unconditionally. The reasons stated in Ext.P10 are as follows: “(iii) The quantity shown in the accompanying documents is 9.780 MT/Tons/Nos. whereas the vehicle/vessel contain 16.050 MT Kgs/Tons/Nos. The goods with vehicle intercepted and checked at Thrissur. As per documents goods transported from Cochin to Thrissur. The goods not declared in the internal Checkpost Karukutty/Kottapuram. Hence, genuiness of the transportation is suspected and S.D. demanded”. 2. According to petitioner, the reasons stated in Ext.P10 are not valid reasons. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 purchase orders received from a WPC.30540/08 I 2 party at Thrissur and another at Kottayam, petitioner placed orders with one M/s. Prime Metals, Cochin and they instructed their principal at Chennai and the goods were transported vide two separate Invoices and Lorry Receipts as Exts.P3 to P6. The goods had been checked and cleared at Walayar Checkpost and advance tax was paid. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter the representatives of the petitioner and M/s. Prime Metals went to Kokkala, Thrissur with the respective sale bills to avoid further transportation costs and Exts.P7 and P8 Invoices and Ext.P9 Delivery Note were issued and from Kokkala, Thrissur the goods were transported to a dealer at Thrissur along with the goods to be delivered at Kottayam vide Ext.P8 Invoice and Delivery Notes. It is while so, Ext.P10 came to be issued. Petitioner has stated that, though a request was made stating these aspects to release it on self-bond or on payment of advance tax, it was not acceded to. 3. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. I feel that the WPC.30540/08 I 3 petitioner has to file a proper request in writing and that should be ordered to be considered and a decision should be taken. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner will file a written request and also appear before the Officer. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: If the petitioner files a written request for release of the goods before the respondent, the respondent will consider the same and take a decision thereon in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner who will be present along with the representation, within twentyfour hours of receipt of the representation. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge