IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29814 of 2009(V) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SHRI.VIJU.V.K., VANACHIRAKAL HOUSE, THENGODE, KOCHI 682030. BY ADV. SRI.DALE P.KURIEN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WT & LT), ERNAKULAM. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21 /10 /2009 , THE COURT ON 21/10/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO. 29814 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009. J U D G M E N T 1. The petitioner aggrieved by detention of transport of building materials affected on the strength of Ext.P4 invoice and Ext.P4(a) delivery note. According to the petitioner he is a contractor who had undertaken sub contract of construction of court complex at Vanchiyur, Thiruvananthapuram. He had purchased timber for making building materials through Ext.P4 invoice. The building materials made out of the timber purchased was transported to the work site. The consignment was intercepted by the second respondent on issuing Ext.P5 notice under Section 47(2) of Kerala Value Added Tax. The reason for detention mentioned therein is that the transport was not accompanied only by the ' transporter copy ' of the delivery note and instead the triplicate copy of the delivery note was accompanying the goods. Further, that copy does not contained relevant details like date and time commencement of transport etc. It is further stated that, the purchase invoice is pertaining to timber logs purchased by the petitioner and the value shown in the delivery note with respect to the building materials is the same value shown in the 2 purchase invoice. Therefore, evasion of payment of tax was suspected and security deposit was demanded. 2. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The learned Government Pleader contended that the documents accompanied the transport was not the documents required under Section 46(3) and there were serious defects with respect to the documents produced. Eventhough the petitioner contended that the transport was made for own use, no declaration with respect to ownership was produced. Under such circumstances there is every possibility of the goods being transported with an intention of re- sale, is the contuition. 3. Having considered rival contentions and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that whether there was any attempted at evation of payment of tax is a matter need be decided on finalisation of the adjudication, as contemplated under Section 47. At the same time continued detention of the goods till finalisation is not at all warranted. Hence I am of the opinion that the goods can be released to the petitioner on condition of the petitioner furnishing sufficient security for the amount demanded under Ext.P5. 4. In the result, the writ petition disposed of directing the second 3 respondent to release the goods along with the vehicle detained under Ext.P5 invoice on the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for the amount demanded under Ext.P5. 5. The competent authority under Section 47(5) and (6) of the Act is directed expedite the adjudication proceedings and to finalise the same after affording opportunity to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within the period of two months from the date of release of goods. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. pm 4 5