IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5249 of 2010(E)
1. M/S.MADRAS AUTO SERIVICE,35/3034 A,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, DEPT.OF
... Respondent
2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER,COMMERCIAL TAXES,
For Petitioner :SMT.S.K.DEVI
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :22/02/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
-----------------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 5249 of 2010
----------------------------------------
Dated, this the 22nd day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P1 notice issued under Section
47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, whereby the goods
transported from Bangalore to Kozhikode in vehicle bearing No. TN 31
AV 9595 were intercepted and detained for non satisfaction of the
requirements under Section 46 (3) of the Act.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
detention of the goods is not correct or proper, particularly for reason
that Section 47 (2) is not at all attracted to the case in hand, it being an
inter-state transport and not a transport within the State. The learned
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits with
reference to the contents to the statement filed, that the idea and
understanding of the petitioner as to the scope of Section 47 (2) is quite
wrong and misconceived; simultaneously adding that the goods in
transit were not supported by valid documents, but for a photo copy of
the invoice and hence the course pursued by the concerned respondent
doubting the evasion of tax, demanding security deposit is perfectly
within the four walls of law and not assailable under any circumstance.
WP(C) No.5249/2010
2
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the legal
question raised by the petitioner in the Writ Petition as to the scope of
Section 47 (2) might be left open and that the petitioner might be
permitted to have the goods released on executing a ‘simple bond’, taking
note of the fact that the petitioner is a registered dealer and is a major
contributor of the revenue to the State.
4. Considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that the
goods can be released to the petitioner, on condition that the petitioner
deposits 50% of the security deposit as shown in Ext.P1, simultaneously
executing a ‘simple bond’ for the balance amount. On satisfying the said
requirements, the goods shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. This
will be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to pursue the
adjudication proceedings which shall be finalised, in accordance with law,
as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc