K.J.THOMASKUTTY v. STATE OF KERALA

WPC.36210/08: 3 :petitioner preferred Ext.P9 objection which came to be rejectedreiterating the demand for security. Then, Ext.P10(a) is issuedrevising the value based on Ext.P4 bill of entry.2.I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. BechuKurian Thomas and learned Government Pleader. Learnedcounsel for the petitioner points out that the excavator wasimported for the petitioner's own use in his quarry. He alsoreiterates his contentions. Learned Government Pleader pointsout that the vehicle was detained at Attingal which is nearly 100Km. away from Vadasserikkara and on the way ofThiruvananthapuram. In fact, in Ext.P10 also it is stated that thepetitioner's explanation that the route change was inadvertentdetour taken by the driver is not convincing enough in the face ofthe recording in the Lorry Receipt where it has been shown thedestination as Thiruvananthapuram. It is submitted by thelearned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a registereddealer under the KVAT Act.3.Having considered the facts, I feel, in the interest ofjustice, that Ext.P10 should be modified and that the petitioner WPC.36210/08: 4 :may be called upon to execute bank guarantee for Rs.5 lakhs andon further condition that the petitioner will execute a simple bondwithout sureties for the balance amount demanded in Ext.P10(a).Ordered accordingly. Further, the petitioner will make available acopy of the registration certificate under the KVAT Act also to theofficer. Upon fulfilling these conditions, the goods detained will bereleased to the petitioner forthwith. The adjudication process willbe completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copyof this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/-(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)aks// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE