IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36018 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.BRIDAVAN SCAN AND DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE, KOTTAMPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, C.K.RAJAN. BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISSH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAXES CHECK POST, BANGARA MANJESWAR, KASARAGOD. 2. PROLIFE DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE, B-402, FAME APT 747 GURUWAR PETH, PUNE-411 042. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY RAJAGOPAL KHANDELWAL. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 36018 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of transport of a 'scanning machine', on issuing Ext.P9 notice under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). According to the petitioner he is conducting diagnostic centres at Kozhikode as well as in Mysore, and the machine in question was originally imported from Australia during the year 2006, as a used machine, to their branch at Mysore. Subsequently the machine was brought to the Kozhikode branch. But it could not be put to use since it was in irreparable condition. It is stated that the consignee, the 2nd respondent herein, who is also conducting a diagnostic centre at Pune, had purchased the machine at scrap value. The sale agreement showed that the machine was sold at a price of Rs.2,50,000/-. 2. The transport was accompanied only by the sale W.P.(C)No. 36018 of 2009 -2- agreement. The authority detaining the goods noticed that the consignment was not seen declared in any of the check posts enroute, between Kozhikode and Manjeshwar, and that no proper documents as contemplated under Section 46 (3) was accompanying the transport. The authority further found that the claim that the machine is sold as a scrap, is not true and correct as evident from its appearance and packing. The machine with all its parts were seen transported intact. Therefore the value of the goods is estimated at Rs.75 lakhs and security deposit was demanded for double the amount of tax, on the basis of such valuation, to the tune of Rs.18,93,750/-. 3. The question whether there was any attempt at evasion of payment of tax is a matter which need be adjudicated and finalised by the authority concerned. Limited prayer is for release of the vehicle in which the goods is loaded and for an earlier adjudication of the matter under Section 47 (6). 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of W.P.(C)No. 36018 of 2009 -3- the opinion that writ petition can be disposed of granting such reliefs, in view of the fact that the adjudication process may take some time to settle the issue. 5. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to unload the goods detained, and to take the vehicle, released. The machine along with its accessories shall be kept in proper custody by the 1st respondent till the adjudication is over. 6. The competent authority under Section 47 (5) & (6) are directed to expedite the adjudication after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and to the 2nd respondent, to produce documents if any in support of their contentions. The adjudication proceedings shall be finalised as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of release of the vehicle. 7. The adjudicating authority is permitted to issue notice to the 2nd respondent through the petitioner and both the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent shall co-operate W.P.(C)No. 36018 of 2009 -4- with the adjudication process to finalise the same at the earliest. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/