IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRAMENON,J WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23750 of 2009(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K.I.PAUL, PROPRIETOR, K.I.PAUL & COMPANY, NELLIKUZHI, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPL.CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. M/S.RUBBER WORLD, 40/1035, JEWS STREET, ERNAKULAM-682 035. GOVERNEMNT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRAMENON. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C.NO.23750 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009. J U D G M E N T The goods transported in the vehicle bearing No.KL B 9447 based on Ext.P2 to P5 were intercepted by the first respondent leading to issuance of Ext.P1 notice u/s 47(2) of the KVAT Act pointing out the incriminating circumstances and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein, which in turn is sought to be challenged in the present Writ petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits with reference to the available materials on record, that Ext.P7 invoice has been mannually numbered, which is not permissible under the relevant provisions of law. It is also stated that the documents were of 14.8.2009, whereas the transportation was being effected on 15.8.2009 at 2.15 p.m. while the actual distance between the premises of the consignor and the place of interception could be covered within 3 to 4 hours, thus suspecting evasion of tax, leading to issuance of Ext.P1, which hence is within the four walls of the law; submits the learned Government Pleader. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the goods wpc 23750/2009 2 were actually loaded in the vehicle on 14.8.2009. it could actually be transported only on 15.8.2009 because of heavy rains on the previous day. But for the vague averment in the writ petition, regarding the said aspect, no objection / reply has been filed in response to Ext.P1 and no satisfactory explanation is offered with regard to the entry of ' Sl. No: ' made in Ext.P7 invoice manually. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the vehicle as well as the goods could be released to the petitioner on depositing 50% of the amount shown in Ext.P1, simultaneously executing a ' personal bond ' for the balance amount. On satisfying the said requirement, the vehicle as well as the goods forming the subject matter of Ext.P1 shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. It is also made clear that this will be without prejudice to the right of the first respondent to proceed with the adjudication proceedings; which exercise shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,JUDGE. pm