IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 23982 of 2010(W) 1. M/S.JAI HIND TRADERS, 29/621, ... Petitioner Vs 1. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR (WC), ... Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON Dated :03/08/2010 O R D E R P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 23982 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT
The petitioner is before this Court challenging the detention of the
goods transported in the vehicle bearing No. TN 30 AA 6744, which was
intercepted on the way, by issuing Ext.P6 notice under Section 47(2) of
the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding
security deposit to the extent as specified therein.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, the defect pointed out in
Ext.P6 is rather ‘technical’ and that the same does not want any detention
of further proceedings. It was only an omission on the part of the parties
concerned in not showing the ‘time’ in Ext.P2 delivery note. The goods
were actually procured from Palakkad and the same was being taken to
Neyyattinkara; after reaching Ernakulam, in the very same vehicle. In spite
of explaining the position, the respondent has not paid any heed to the
same and the detention still continues, which made the petitioner to
approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.
3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent, with reference to the materials on record, submits that the
factum of omission noted in Ext.P2 delivery note is rather conceded. It is
also brought on record that, inspite of the fact that no time was mentioned
2
WP(C) No. 23982/2010
in the delivery note, it was subsequently as 21.45 hrs., whereas the
detention was at 8.05 a.m. on the same day; which reveals the fact that the
correction was done by none other than the driver, submits the learned
Government Pleader.
4. This Court does not intend to express anything on the merits
and the matter requires to be adjudicated in accordance with law. But for
this reason, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the vehicle or the
goods; which shall be released to the petitioner forthwith, on satisfying 50%
of the security deposit demanded in Ext.P6, either in the form of ‘Cash’ or
in the form of ‘Bank Guarantee’ and executes a ‘simple bond’ for the
balance amount. This will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of
the respondent to finalise the adjudication proceedings, which shall be
completed 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