B. MOHAMMED SHERIF Vs. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the KVAT Act, was transporting some wooden furniture (Manchiyam) in the vehicle bearing No. KL 2N 9197, when the same was intercepted on 5.8.2010, issuing Ext.P1 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein, which forms the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the only defect noted in Ext.P1 is that, the goods are 'undervalued', which made the authority concerned to doubt evasion of tax, leading to issuance of Ext.P1 notice. The goods reflect the actual 'market value' and that absolutely no rhyme or reason is there for the observation, to the contrary, submits the learned Counsel.

(3.) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that this is a matter which requires to be adjudicated by the concerned authority in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law. However, this Court does not find it necessary to detain the goods as well as the vehicle any further and the same shall be released to the petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner executes a 'simple bond' for the security deposit demanded vide Ext.P1. This will be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, if any, 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.