IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 W.P.(C).No. 5748 of 2008 (H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.M.MUHAMMED KUNJU, PROPRIETOR, M/S.M.M.SAW MILLS AND INDUSTRIES, ADOOPARAMBA, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY JOHN SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO III COMMERCIAL TAXES, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P. (C) No. 5748 OF 2008 H = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Detention of timber by Ext. P4 is under challenge. petitioner submits that a consignment imported and transported to Muvattupuzha has been detained on the allegation that there was no delivery note or other documents except the sale invoice. Ext. P4 shows that except a sale invoice, there were no other documents including delivery note. It is also stated that the vehicle number in which the goods were transported is not mentioned in the accompanied invoice. Yet another irregularity noticed is that the status of the authorised signatory is not mentioned and the seal is not affixed on the invoice. Petitioner contends that Ext. P2 is the tax invoice and according to the petitioner it contains the number of the delivery note and also other particulars. Ext. P3 is stated to be the delivery note, which also is fool proof according to the petitioner. Petitioner also contends that the advance tax was paid in respect of the goods at the check post. W.P.(C) No. 5748 OF 2008 - 2 - 2. Even according to the petitioner, it is a fact that the goods were initially consigned from Tuticorin to Muvattupuzha, but a portion of it was diverted to Trivandrum where the consignment was detained. If that be so, the goods ought to have been accompanied by proper records which in this case prima facie was absent. In view of this, I cannot find fault with the opinion expressed by the authorities in Ext. P4. Therefore, the matter requires to be adjudicated and in the meanwhile if the goods have to be released the petitioner may furnish bank guarantee for the amount mentioned in Ext. P4, less the advance tax paid. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-