IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27447 of 2009(A)
1. M/S.BHARATH PLYWOODS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :30/09/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.27447 OF 2009
------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
———————-
1. Petitioner is challenging detention of goods
transported by him which was intercepted by the respondent,
pursuant to notice issued as per Ext.P5. According to the
petitioner he had effected transport of ‘C’ grade Commercial
Plywoods from his business place at Koovappady, Perumbavoor,
to the consignee at Palarivattom, Cochin. According to him the
transport was accompanied by Ext.P2 and P3 invoices and Ext.P4
delivery note. The goods were intercepted by the respondent at
Ankamaly on 25.9.2009 at 23.00 hrs. On interception it is
noticed that the documents accompanied the transport is dated
26.9.2009 and further it is noticed that Ankamaly is not within
the normal route of journey between Perumbavoor and
Palarivattom. Hence genuineness of transport was doubted and
attempt at evasion of payment of tax was suspected. By Ext.P5
the respondent demanded to furnish security deposit to the tune
of Rs.46,037/- for permitting onward transport.
2. According to the petitioner the discrepancy in the
date occurred only due to a bonafide mistake and the deviation
W.P.(C).27447/09-A 2
in the normal route was adopted only because of the bad
conditions of the road. Therefore he is seeking directions for
release of the goods on the ground that the goods were
transported on the basis of proper documents and there was no
attempt at evasion of payment of any tax.
3. The question whether there was any attempt at
evasion of payment of tax with respect to transport, need be
decided in a process of adjudication as contemplated under
Section 47 of the KVAT Act. It is not proper for this court to
enter on merits of the rival contentions and to arrive at any
conclusion on the above aspect. Having considered the facts and
circumstances I am inclined to direct release of the goods on the
petitioner furnishing proper security, in view of the proviso to
Section 47(2) of the Act.
4. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing
the respondent to release the goods along with the vehicle
detained under Ext.P5, on the petitioner furnishing Bank
Guarantee for the amount demanded under Ext.P5.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb