IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19955 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD., 23/61A, NH 47, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, 683104, COCHIN REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH COMMERCIAL MANAGER MR.ASHOK P. BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT.) COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE-II, ERNAKULAM. 3. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 4. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 19955 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the detention of goods brought in the vehicles bearing Registration Nos.TN 28 AB-5664 and TN 09 AL-6159, which were intercepted by the third respondent, at Kalamassery, by issuing Ext.P3 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the goods were very much accompanied with all the necessary documents, so as to sustain transportation, the same having been imported from China to Chennai Port, from where it was being taken to the destination in Kerala. The vehicles along with the goods passed through the Walayar check post without any demur. When the vehicles reached Kalamassery, the third respondent chose to intercept the same, doubting evasion of W.P.(C) No.19955/2010 2 tax, which is absolutely without any reasons, submits the counsel. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, with reference to the materials on record, submits that absolutely no document was there to support the transportation, as contemplated under Section 46(3) of the KVAT Act. Even though it is stated that the goods were imported from 'China' and were taken to Ernakulam, it is rather conceded by the petitioner that the goods were imported in Chennai. The documents produced as Exts.P1 and P2, Bill of Lading and Commercial Invoice, reveal that the goods were sold to the petitioner's unit in 'Haryana'. There is no document produced either before the respondents or before this Court to justify the transportation to Kerala, with reference to the name and address of the petitioner in Kerala. 4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a consignment note, dated, 18.6.2010, W.P.(C) No.19955/2010 3 which has been taken note of vide Item No.3 in Ext.P3 notice, and that all the requisite particulars have been given in the said consignment note. The vital discrepancies pointed out, as mentioned in Ext.P3, are with regard to the transaction between the parties concerned, effecting the sale of the goods to the unit of the petitioner in Haryana, and the absence of relevant documents in support of the transportation to Kerala, which are still to be explained. 5. Considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that this is a matter which requires to be adjudicated so as to bring the true state of affairs to light. However, for that reason, this Court does not find that the vehicles as well as the goods need to be detained any further and that the same shall be released to the petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner satisfies 50% of the liability towards the security deposit demanded in Ext.P3, either in the form of 'Cash/DD' or by way of 'Bank Guarantee'. This, however, will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondents to pursue W.P.(C) No.19955/2010 4 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 accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. nj.