High Court Kerala High Court

M/S. Ernakulam Trading Company vs Commissioner on 16 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
M/S. Ernakulam Trading Company vs Commissioner on 16 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36445 of 2009(A)



1. M/S. ERNAKULAM TRADING COMPANY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :16/12/2009

 O R D E R
                  C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  W.P.(C)No. 36445 of 2009
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
         Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009


                         J U D G M E N T

1. Writ petition is field aggrieved by detention of

transport effected, on issuing Ext.P5 notice under Section

47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act).

The reason for detention mentioned in Ext.P5 is that the

date furnished in the Delivery Note which accompanied the

transport, is 12.11.2009, whereas the transport was

effected on 12.12.2009. Copy of the Delivery Note which

accompanied the transport is produced as Ext.P3. It seems

that the suspicion is raised on the basis that there is a

correction effected while noting the date in the Delivery

Note. Contention of the petitioner is that inspite of that

minor correction the date is clearly legible as, “12.12.09”.

Onward transport is detained seeking to furnish security

deposit to the tune of Rs.26,834/-.

W.P.(C)No. 36445 of 2009
-2-

2. Without adjudication on the merits regarding the

reason for detention, I am of the opinion that the allegation

contained in Ext.P5 is only in the nature of a discrepancy

with respect to the document accompanying the transport.

The petitioner being a registered dealer, I am of the opinion

that pending finalisation of the adjudication, the goods can

be released on its furnishing Security Bond, as provided

under proviso to Section 47 (2).

3. In the result the writ petition is disposed of

directing the 2nd respondent to release the goods detained

under Ext.P5 notice along with the vehicle, on the petitioner

furnishing Security Bond in the form provided under the

KVAT Rules, without sureties, for the value of amounts

demanded under Ext.P5.

4. The competent authority under Section 47 (5) &

(6) of the KVAT Act is directed to finalise the adjudication

proceedings and to pass final order, after affording

opportunity to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any

W.P.(C)No. 36445 of 2009
-3-

rate within a period of one month from the date of release

of the goods.

C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE

shg/