IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31226 of 2010(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ADVANCED CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD., DOOR NO.29/1415A & 29/1415B, D.S. & SONS COMPLEX, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682 019, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR.GIRISH V.B. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH JERARD SAMSON RODRIGUES RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.IV, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM AT PUNALUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 31226 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of transport of a Hydrolic Excavator (Volvo Make). According to the petitioner, the goods in question was being transported from branch to branch of the petitioner, for the purpose of demonstration, and it was intercepted when transported from Madurai to Kottayam. The transport was accompanied by Delivery Note and Ext.P8 letter issued by Volvo India Private Ltd. Ext.P4 is the notice issued under section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (for short the KVAT Act). 2. On a perusal of the documents which accompanied the transport the authority found that those documents were not sufficient to indicate that the goods was transported for the purpose of demonstration. On the other hand, it was strongly suspected that the consignment was intended for sale within the State of Kerala. Therefore security deposit was demanded. 3. According to the petitioner, they are the main dealers of vehicles manufactured by M/s.Volvo India Private Ltd. and they W.P.(C) No. 31226/2010 2 are registered dealers within the State of Kerala. It is submitted that the Excavator in question was consigned to a dealer of the petitioner, having office at Ernakulam. But the same was intended for demonstration to be arranged at Kottayam. Hence it was transported from Madurai to Kottayam and in the document it was destined for Kottayam. 4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that, the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that they have taken proper permission from the authorities concerned for conducting the demonstration as prescribed under Rule 17(29) of the Kerala Valued Added Tax Rules. It is also contended that no proper documents as required under the statute was accompanying the transport in order to establish that the transport was intended for the purpose of demonstration. 5. Whether the transport was genuine and whether there was any attempt in evasion of tax, are matters which need be decided on completion of the enquiry. Since a detailed enquiry under section 47 is contemplated, I am not entering upon any findings regarding the above aspects. At the same time, I am of W.P.(C) No. 31226/2010 3 the opinion that the goods need not be detained, pending finalization of the enquiry. The petitioner submits that it is a registered dealer within the State, regularly paying tax. 6. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to release the goods (Volvo Hydraulic Excavator) along with the vehicle in which it was carried, which was detained under Ext.P4, on the petitioner producing Bank Guarantee for 50% of the security deposit demanded and also on furnishing Security Bond as provided under the KVAT Rules, without sureties, for the balance amount. 7. The competent authority under section 47 of the KVAT Act is directed to expedite the enquiry and to finalize the same, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of release of the goods. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.